The Australian Heroin Diaries

And in the End...

2011-08-28T19:09:00.023+10:00

And in the end, the love you take ... is equal to the love you make.

-The Beatles

This is the last line from the intended last song on the last album recorded by the Beatles.

And this is also the end of The Australian Heroin Diaries.

My journey is over now that I have achieved what I set out to do. I no longer use heroin and have a dwindling interest in our drug policy set out by silly politicians. It is a new chapter in my life that involves a new location, a new attitude, a new start and possible even a new love interest.

I have learned a lot since I first started this site back in 2007. I have also met some inspirational people who kept me writing day after day. But, in the end, what has changed?

There is a slow but steady change in attitude building throughout the world. The constant barrage of scientific data and quantified research is chipping away at the misconceptions that been pounded into our psyche for the last 100 years. The constant reminder of a failed drug war is taking hold as society starts to question why the problem only ever gets worse. The current scrutiny of the Murdoch empire is finally raising awareness about the incredible power that the trash media can wield, ultimately influencing governments in their drug policies. Ex presidents, ex prime ministers and some brave politicians are starting to take a stand and speak out against the draconian drug laws that are wreaking so much havoc and carnage throughout the world. Social commentators and editorial writers are speaking like never before. Yes, many things have changed and attitudes are still evolving albeit, very slowly.

Unfortunately though, there still remains many groups and individuals who refuse to accept the science and facts. These largely ideologically driven protagonists are often driven by a force much more powerful than facts and research. They formulate many of their views from religious faith which in itself is just a personal conviction with no evidence or facts. Faith has no place in a field like drug policy which is a medical issue and needs to be based on cold, hard evidence. If anything, someone who has faith in a loving god should practice what they preach. Banging up drug addicts in jail or ruining their lives is as hypocritical as it gets.

I need to thank so many people for a variety of reasons but it would require several pages to list them all. Although I received some criticism and nasty comments, the bulk of readers have offered nothing but support. It has been an emotional journey for me and as corny as it sounds, I could not have gone on for so long without the incredible kindness of so many people.

Thanks to:

Paul Gallagher(Firesnake)

Ant Rogenous

Gledwood

Bron

Michael Gormly(Kings Cross Times)

Paul Dessauer

Puja from Mumbai

Bob Affenhaus

Zoot

Michelle(The Red Pill Survival Guide)

Dave Gaukroger(Dave From Albury/Pure Poison)

Greg Iverson
Tonia Suzanne Zoldosh
Maureen Jo Begley

The Happy Revolutionary(THR)

Guy Ferguson

Tory Shepherd

Mr Ghostface

John(Pins Grins and Sins)

Naomi(Junky Life Naomi)

Fiona Patten

Sandra Kanck

Andrew Bartlett

Kerry Wolf

Dr. James Rowe

Gino Vumbaca

Tony Trimingham(Family Drug Support )

Nicholas Cowdery

Mark O'Brien

Jason

RV
Clarencegirl

Long Time Anon Poster

Reb(Gutter Trash)

Mr. Orange

SickGirl(Methadone Pretty)

Christians Against Prohibition

Kieran Bennett
Donna Weiss Kloppenburg

Ross Sharp (The Wittiest Writer on the blogosphere)

Ben Pobjie

Michael Slezak(Good Bad and Bogus)
Grods Corp

Jeremy Sear
Scott Bridges
Bridget Gread

Cosmic Jester

Weez(Machinegun Keyboard)

Jim Brown(On Probation Blog)

Stonetree Harm Reduction

Marginalutility (The Virtues Of Vice)

We Speak Methadone (Forum)

Kat Daley

James(Australian Drug Blog)

David Nentwig

Marion & Brian McConnell(Families and Friends for Drug Law Reform)

Free Schapelle Campaign Group

Nigel Brunsdon(Injecting Advice)
Matt Gleeson(Stonetree Harm Reduction)

Monica Barratt

Interfaith Drug Policy Initiative

JUNKe Life(Opiated)

Mina

Roguevert

Jack Dorf
Leon Bertrand

The Irish Needle Exchange Forum

William(With Just A Hint Of Mayhem)

Caty

Donna

Broken

Canna Zine News

My groovy friends at the Bluelight Drug Forums

Canadian Spades

New Zealand Drug Foundation

RMIT

Why We Protest

Canna Nation

Jane Shelling

Leah McLeod

Sue Miers

Gary Gahan

Jan Steele

Annie Madden(AIVL)

Jon Markus

Rob(Inn@Six)

Steve Robinson
Rob Marsh
Andy(Slack Bastard)
Ileum(OzPolitik)
Sam Liebelt(AIVL)
The 7pm Project
Blogotariat
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP) Australia
Losing In The Lucky Country(blog)
Civil Tongues(blog)
Alan Ide(New Australia)
The National Library of Australia
All Treatment
OZ Stoners(forum)
Johnny Mortgage
Ken Low
Heads Together - The AOD Collective
Rich Bowden(The Angle)
Daniel
Jesus PTY LTD
Gary Toca
Shane(Memoirs of a Heroinhead)
National Library of Australia
New Matilda
Sam Sejavka
Sarah(The Voice of Today's Apathetic Youth)
Mikey(HarrangueMan)
Crikey/Pure Poison
Tobias Ziegler
Toaf
Private Tom
Bruce(Thinkers Podium)
Darryl Mason(The Orstrahyun)
and of course Anonymous who posted so many comments.

A special thanks to Mrs Wright for putting up with me for so long. I will love this woman forever and she will remain an important part of my life.

Also, a special thanks to my family, especially my father who encouraged and supported me unconditionally. Thanks Dad.

If I have left anyone out, you know who you are.

Been Busy

2011-07-27T22:28:00.000+10:00

Howdy All.

Sorry but I have been busy moving.

Back soon.

Terry.

Drug Law Reform - NZ Show Australia How it's Done

2011-06-28T18:43:00.000+10:00

It seems that our New Zealand cousins are finally taking some much needed action on drug law reform. Australia should take note of this and consider carefully what they are doing.

Old, antiquated drug laws and policies continue to wreak carnage on society while our government continue to apply the same old failed strategies, hoping for some miraculous turn around. For over 40 years, we have followed in the foot steps of the US which is only now starting to see the damage they have inflicted on their own people. Likewise in Australia, we have ruined so many lives from a "Tough on Drugs" mentality and the laws are causing more problems than drugs themselves.

Why do NZ have a better understanding of this than Australia? SA and WA had started seeing good results from a more sensible approach to cannabis use but decided to ignore the success by reintroducing tougher laws. These acts of arrogance were in complete opposition to the current world trend and in defiance of expert opinion. Even the Australian federal government continues to cherry pick advice from key advisory groups purely to suit their political needs. All this while the evidence keeps pouring in that our drug policies are probably some of the worst decisions ever made by a government. New Zealand is at least doing something about it.

Too many resources are directed into criminalising people rather than providing them with the medical help they most need. Current drug law is 35 years out-of-date and is hurting our families.

Too many resources are directed into criminalising people rather than providing them with the medical help they most need. The Law Commission's report recognises this and seeks to redress it by adopting a harm reduction approach for dealing with personal drug use by adults.

This new approach, if adopted, will actually save money enabling greater resources to be directed into health services for breaking the cycle of drug abuse and addiction. It will also free police to tackle more serious crime.

-Green Party Co-leader Metiria Turei

The suggestions made by NZ Law Commission are a good start for a future without drug prohibition ... the single most destructive policy in 100 years. Most of us have never experienced a world where recreational drugs were regulated which makes it hard for the public to imagine how ending drug prohibition would work. We have to gradually introduce recommendations like those from the NZ Law Commission and give them time to take hold. As predicted by the experts, the results will speak for themselves, slowly shifting the public's perception. Well done NZ!

Review of Misuse of Drugs Act 1975

NZLC R122 Controlling and Regulating Drugs - A Review of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975

Published 3 May 2011

The Law Commission today issued its latest report, Controlling and Regulating Drugs – A Review of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.

Among the key proposals contained in the report are:

A mandatory cautioning scheme for all personal possession and use offences that come to the attention of the police, removing minor drug offenders from the criminal justice system and providing greater opportunities for those in need of treatment to access it.

A full scale review of the current drug classification system which is used to determine restrictiveness of controls and severity of penalties, addressing existing inconsistencies and focusing solely on assessing a drug’s risk of harm, including social harm.

Making separate funding available for the treatment of offenders through the justice sector to support courts when they impose rehabilitative sentences to address alcohol and drug dependence problems;

Consideration of a pilot drug court, allowing the government to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of deferring sentencing of some offenders until they had undergone court-imposed alcohol and/or drug treatment

NZLC R122- Part 1 Controlling and Regulating Drugs: A Review of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975

NZLC R122 - Part 2 Controlling and Regulating Drugs: A Review of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975

No More Prisons, Says English

TVNZ

May 2011

Finance minister Bill English says there will be no more prisons built under his watch as finance minister.

He's called prisons a moral and fiscal failure and there are other ways of dealing with criminals and potential criminals.

Asked by Guyon Espiner on Q A this morning if the government was going to continue building prisons once the 1000-bed facility in the Auckland suburb of Wiri was completed, English said Wiri was likely to be the last.

"They're very, very expensive," English said. "$250,000 a bed, $90,000 a year to run ... when we're tight for money."

He said the aim instead is to reduce recidivism, and prevent young people from entering the system at all.

"The public service has done a lot of very smart work on this and, over the next two or three years, we're going to see the need for prison beds drop a bit at least."

But a spokesperson for victims says English is wrong. Sensible Sentencing spokesperson Garth McVicar says it's not the right tactic.

"Just as they were starting to bear fruit through the 'tough on crime' message that they were sending out, he capitulates and waves a white flag," McVicar told ONE News.

"It just sends the wrong message to criminals. I know people think criminals are dumb but they're quite smart and they'll understand if we're not going to build more prisons out there, then ultimately we're not going to send them to prison."

One advocate for penal reform agrees with English and is certain having more prisons will just breed more criminals.

"We could put more prisoners into trades; we could put more prisoners into work on farms," Peter Williams QC told ONE News.

"We've got to put more emphasis on rehabilitation, drug programmes, anti-alcohol programmes without just locking these people up in small containers."

English said the government is committed to building Wiri's prison so that won't change.

"That's well through the process, and we need the extra 1000 beds because it's been part of this government's policy and public pressure for tougher sentences and a safer community," he said.

The Labour Government built four prisons but National has been saving money by housing some prisoners in purpose-adapted containers.

Q & A: Nicholas Cowdery

2011-06-11T10:20:00.001+10:00

Name: Nicholas Cowdery

Role: Ex. NSW Director of Public Prosecutions (17 years) / President of the International Association of Prosecutors (6 years).

Date: June 2011

Criminal law has no business trying to control a market. Can it modify supply and demand? Well, no it can't. It can only clean up after the event.

-Nicholas Cowdery - IQ² debate. 2011

People like Nicholas Cowdery were once rare but are becoming more common every year. I'm talking about those in very senior positions working for the government, politicians, law enforcement officers, judges, economists etc. who want an end to dangerous global drug laws that cause so much carnage each year. And Nick has been warning us about this for a long time. In 2001, he wrote the book, Getting Justice Wrong: Myths, Media and Crime which clearly exposed the problems we all encounter due to global drug policies.

The book arose, in fact, from a suggestion by the publishers that some papers and articles I had produced be collected and reproduced in book form. The underlying premise of this collection of chapters is the risk to justice – the risk of getting justice wrong – posed by the influence of some sections of the media on policy making and legislating by politicians. I am also concerned, more generally, with policy being based other than on fact and reason. Without careful analysis and a critical assessment of the publications of talkback radio “entertainers” (as they like to be described), the tabloid press and low IQ television, we are at risk of the rule of law being subverted for motives that are irrelevant to the proper process of law-making – essentially, motives of profit for the commentators.

They are not accountable to the community. They are not concerned with the good government of the people, with what is in the public interest (properly understood) rather than what is of interest to the public. They appeal to the emotions of their audience with partial truths and sweeping generalisations about matters that are topical at the time. They deliberately adopt extreme positions on simple propositions. They perpetuate some of the myths about crime, especially, that are reinforced at every state election.

-Nicholas Cowdery - Lecture at the University of New England, Armidale, May 2001

You really have to respect Nick for his commitment while working under less than ideal conditions. How many people in his position would criticise a strategy that is championed by so many in his industry? But what really makes Nick's views so important is his credibility. Being a QC, receiving an Order of Australia from the Queen, serving as the NSW Director of Public Prosecutions for 17 years and spending six years as President of the International Association of Prosecutors should tell us that his legal views are more than likely correct. The point is, when someone with these credentials constantly tell us that we are making a mistake by following a set of laws that have failed worldwide for 40 years, then maybe we should listen to them.

About Nicholas Cowdery

Nicholas Richard Cowdery AM QC (born 19 March 1946) was the Director of Public Prosecutions for the Australian state of New South Wales. He held the position from 1994 to 2011.[1] Cowdery also served as President of the International Association of Prosecutors from 1999 to 2005.

Cowdery attended Wollongong High School and completed his secondary schooling at the Sydney Grammar School. He graduated in Arts and Law at the University of Sydney where he was a resident of St. Paul's College.

In 1971, he commenced practising as a public defender in Papua New Guinea after admission as a barrister in the same year. Cowdery entered private practice in 1975 where he concentrated in criminal law, common law, administrative law and some commercial law.

He was appointed Queen's Counsel in 1987, served as an Associate Judge of the District Court between 1988-1990. Cowdery was appointed the Director of Public Prosecutions for New South Wales in 1994. He was elected President of the International Association of Prosecutors in 1999 and re-elected to a second three-year term in September 2002.

He wrote Getting Justice Wrong: myths, media and crime

-About Nicholas Cowdery from Wikipedia

NOTE: I want to thank Nick for participating in this Q&A. I didn't really expect someone like Nicholas Cowdery to even respond to my email let alone agree to answer some questions. But as usual, I was wrong. Nick responded in 24 hours and said he was happy to participate. Thanks Nick.

QUESTIONS

Has being so adamant that the "War on Drugs" has failed been a problem especially since you held such a prominent position as the Director of Public Prosecutions in NSW for nearly 17 years?

No. As DPP it was my duty, which I carried out, to apply and enforce the law with the resources that I had available and within the rules and guidelines that applied. However, in doing so I was confirmed in my view that as a society we could address drug issues better. It is quite possible to apply oneself fully to the operation of a system, yet believe that the system should be changed. Legal training equips one well for such mental gymnastics.

From your experience, do many others in the legal profession feel the same as you about drug policy?

Yes, from my experience a very large number in all areas of practice.

From your experience, do many politicians you know actually believe the hype that the war on drugs is winnable?

No – but their main concern is re-election and they are loath to publicly express their true views unless they can be assured that a substantial portion of the electors will agree.

Did the dispute between you and Attorney-General John Hatzistergos have anything at all to do with your out spoken views on changing drug laws?

No.

You have publicly criticised the "tough on crime" agenda used by politicians. Do you personally know any politicians who sincerely object to that strategy?

In November 2010 Greg Smith stated publicly that there would not be a “law and order auction” election in March 2011 and there was not. I think many politicians (and I have spoken with a few) see such campaigns as fruitless.

What are your thoughts on The Greens changing their drug policy to be more in line with the major political parties?

No doubt influenced by other considerations of political alliances, etc.

Do you feel frustrated by the public’s ignorance regarding drug myths and their willingness to accept misinformation from the government and media outlets?

It is not easy to gauge the level of understanding or of ignorance in the community generally. We become aware of these things only when something is published or stated at a meeting, etc. Ignorance about any issue in society can only be addressed by providing as broadly as possible reliable, accurate information. Politicians spread information selectively for their political advancement, as they see it (by and large). The tabloid media create conflict and controversy to sell advertising. The public are more easily exposed to those sources of “information” than to credible sources that may require some extra effort to uncover and to fully comprehend.

Do you feel it’s someone right to take illicit drugs (or to put whatever they want into their own body?)

Generally, yes – if they are able to make an informed choice about it. However, members of a society also have a responsibility to obey the laws of that society made in their name and for their benefit.

Do you or have you used illicit drugs recreationally?

No.

Do you think a needle exchange program is needed in prisons?

Yes.

The support for the proposed safe injecting room in Richmond has surprised many people. Why do you think there has been such a rapid change of attitude considering the recent controversy over the Kings Cross MSIC?

I think the controversy over such centres has subsided as the evidence has shown the benefits of such facilities – and that has taken 10 years for the Sydney one. Sydney’s is only one of 91 such centres worldwide – I think they are catching on and for good reason – they work. (But there is still the legal anomaly of requiring people to break the law to obtain their own drugs to bring in to the centre.)

Do you think Victorian Premier, Ted Baillieu will eventually agree to a safe injecting room in Richmond?

I don’t know – but a change of approach by the government has been made more difficult by its earlier flat rejection of the idea.

Other Opiate Maintenance Treatments(OMT) in use or on trial in Europe, Canada and the U.K have had very successful results. Should other forms of OMT be trailed in Australia like slow release oral morphine, injectable hydromorphone, dihydrocodeine, injectable methadone and prescription heroin?

I don’t really know enough about such programs and their experience to be able to comment – but prescription heroin has produced excellent health, social and law enforcement results, for example, in Switzerland and we should certainly trial that.

A report was just released titled, Randomised controlled trial of dexamphetamine maintenance for the treatment of methamphetamine dependence. As far as I can obtain, it was not a publicly known trial but the results were spectacular. Methamphetamine/amphetamines are not technically addictive but can result in severe physiological dependancy. What are your thoughts on this compared to substitution programs for addictive drugs like opioids/heroin?

This is really for a medico to comment on; but I suppose that addiction and dependence, both being health consequences, should be treated, if appropriate, by controlled substitution programs.

Do you have any predictions for the future of Australia’s drug policy over the next 10 years?

Not a prediction, but a hope that, slowly, the public voice will grow strong enough to give politicians the courage to explore alternatives, even on a trial basis in some areas. A Portugal approach could be a good beginning. One of our major difficulties, however, is obeisance to the USA and the interpretation given to some international instruments that are said to prevent us from following a more rational course.

What are you're thoughts on the story of Jade Lewis at the IQ² debate? Do you feel she actually put forward any valid reasons not to legalise all drugs or was it simply a sad story that luckily had a positive conclusion?

As I said just before she spoke, if our approach had been adopted, then she may not have had to make the journey that she did. She told her story, that’s all. It is a sad story (that many more people could tell in one way or another) but in her case it has had a better conclusion than some others and she is to be praised for the work that she is now doing in community education. But there is nothing in the story that speaks against the decriminalisation, regulation, control and taxation of all drugs. Indeed, she demonstrated just how easy it is to obtain drugs, become addicted to them and stay on them under the regime of prohibition without being able to access proper assistance and treatment. If anything, hers was a strong argument against continuation of the present approach.

Before the IQ² debate started, 32.3% of the audience were undecided on whether all drugs should be legalised. After the debate, only 8% remained undecided. Those against increased by 2.1% while those in favour rose by 22.2% That's a difference of about 10-1 who changed their mind after the debate. Does this surprise you?

No. A rational audience.

What single factor do you consider to be the most convincing reason to change our drug policy.

Two factors – the futility and wastefulness of trying to use the criminal law to control or change a well-entrenched market; and the incidental harms that our present policy is causing. Isn’t one description of insanity doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result [or something like that]?

Gary Christian from the anti-drug NGO, Drug Free Australia (DFA) regularly states that the government's 2007 household survey shows that 97% of Australians do not want drugs legalised. Do you think that most of the public who naturally reject drug legalisation after constantly being bombarded with most of the media distorting the facts about drugs and politicians pushing their "Tough on Drugs" message might vote differently if they attended the IQ² debate where facts, history and evidence are presented in an intelligent and logical manner?

The answers obtained in surveys are influenced by the way in which the questions are asked, as any pollster well knows. “Legalised” is a word that can mean many different things to different people; but in the mind of the ordinary citizen it may well mean releasing all restraints so as to proliferate the unattractive aspects of drug use that are mostly hidden (or at least suppressed) at present. And there are different requirements for different drugs that would be taken into account in any move to legalisation (or decriminalisation), which was probably not canvassed in the survey.

The answer to your question is yes. People generally are rational beings, open to persuasion by evidence and logical argument – juries act that way every day. The public should not be underestimated and all they need is accurate information on which to base proper conclusions.

A similar event to the IQ² debate, The Festival of Dangerous Ideas took place at the Sydney Opera House in October 2009 and included the topic, Make All Drug Use Legal. One of the speakers, lawyer, Greg Barns blamed the media for most of the problems associated drugs. Was Greg Barns right to blame the media considering the level of misinformation, drug hysteria and propaganda they produce daily?

I am not quite sure I understand the question. I am not familiar with the Barns presentation or how he put his argument. It is not the media that causes drug problems, it’s the law. But you are right in that much of the tabloid media, especially, misinforms the public.

What do you think of politicians being labelled “Soft on Drugs” when they suggest alternatives to current drug strategies?

It’s a childish and simplistic reaction that really says nothing. It’s just a slogan that the user intends to be offensive. This is not a matter of being hard or soft, it’s a question of being smarter and more effective in the way we address a problem in society. The messages that should be sent when alternatives are suggested are that: 1. When we do something that does not produce good outcomes, we should have the sense to admit, on the basis of that experience, that we may be able to do better and to revise our course; 2. When we can see that what we are doing is actually creating harm, we have an obligation to try to prevent that harm and to proceed differently; and 3. Some things are immutable – there will always be a demand by humans for reality-altering substances and there will always be a supply. We need to control that market (and its participants) and remove the incentive for a black market to exist (ie criminal profits).

Finally, if you were Prime Minister Nicholas Cowdery and you could change one law relating to drug policy or drug treatment, what would it be?

[The party system would probably defeat me] – but changing the present approach requires attention to a whole suite of laws in a coordinated and careful, thorough way, proceeding one step at a time. There would be some trial and error – but progress cannot be achieved in that way unless there is a trial.

Related Articles (Q&A)

Kerry Wolf - Certified Methadone Advocate (USA)

Dr. James Rowe - Lecturer at RMIT, School of Global Studies, Social Science & Planning

Gino Vumbaca - Executive Director of the Australian National Council on Drugs

Sandra Kanck - Former South Australian MLC. South Australia spokesperson for Families and Friends for Drug Law Reform (FFDLR)

Tony Trimingham - Chief Executive Officer, Family Drug Support

Andrew Bartlett - Former Leader of the Australian Democrats and the Australian Senate. Candidate for the Greens in the 2010 Federal election.

Fiona Patten - Leader of The Australian Sex Party

Tory Shepherd - Journalist with News Ltd. / Acting Editor - The Punch

Diary: Suicide and Beyond

2011-06-09T16:33:00.000+10:00

DIARY: June 2011

I tried to kill myself last week.

I failed.

Should I be glad I failed or disappointed? That answer changes from day to day depending on how I feel. The mixed emotions are profound but how the hell do you put it into words? How do you describe a feeling or emotion with simple text? I don't think you can.

I have "clinical depression", whatever that is. I always just thought depression was ... well, depression. I assumed there were different levels but apparently there's also different types: clinical depression, chronic depression, dysthymia, bipolar disorder and more. I didn't use to worry too much about it and thought that everyone gets depressed at some time. It's just part of life. Boy, has that changed.

[...] Clinical depression is a serious medical illness that negatively affects how you feel, the way you think and how you act. Individuals with clinical depression are unable to function as they used to. Often they have lost interest in activities that were once enjoyable to them, and feel sad and hopeless for extended periods of time. Clinical depression is not the same as feeling sad or depressed for a few days and then feeling better. It can affect your body, mood, thoughts, and behavior. It can change your eating habits, how you feel and think, your ability to work and study, and how you interact with people. People who suffer from clinical depression often report that they "don't feel like themselves anymore."

-Berkeley University Health Services

I have to admit I don't feel comfortable writing about this and have only told one person. Since most people I know don't have any idea I write this blog, I am able to open up more here and actually tell it like it is. For over a week, I have spoken to most of my family and some friends and told them I'm not feeling the best and having a bad week but that's as far as I have gone.

The leading cause of death for Australian men under 44 is suicide. The leading cause of death for Australian women under 34 is suicide. And more people die by suicide each year than they do on the road.

-John Brogden - Director of Lifeline Australia

Strangely, the main reason for not telling my family and feeling hesitant in writing this is that I feel silly. I can't even accomplish something as simple as knocking myself off. I have always thought that those who fail at a suicide attempt didn't really try hard enough and weren't fully committed to ending it all. Is that what I did? Should I have taken more pills and did I purposely take less than what was needed to finish the job? Probably. If I was really serious, why would I worry if I would have enough meds left for the rest of the week? Why didn't I just take them all? At the time, I was convinced I took enough to kill a horse or two but I still had in the back of my mind what would happen if I failed.

Clinical depression is not a sign of personal weakness, or a condition that can be willed away. Clinically depressed people cannot "pull themselves together" and get better. In fact, clinical depression often interferes with a person's ability or wish to get help. Clinical depression is a serious illness that lasts for weeks, months and sometimes years. It may even influence someone to contemplate or attempt suicide.

-Berkeley University Health Services

So what happened in the days following my attempt? Did I feel relief or regret? Did circumstances magically resolve themselves? Did some good news come in or something positive happen that helped me get on with life? Absolutely not. In fact, it was the start of a horrific week which got worse each day. I didn't get paid by a client as promised, I was now short of my daily meds, ex Mrs Wright was home sick all week - constantly angry and demanding - and on it went. I kept remembering the day after trying to escape my shitty existence. Instead of being escorted through some beautiful, ornamented gates by an old man with a white beard or sitting at the bottom of the ocean because I had been reincarnated as a mud crab, I instead woke up as usual to some seriously annoying birds trying to tweet and my dogs by my side. Maybe I would have tried harder if I knew what was yet to come.

Well, it's a new week and most of the pressing issues have been resolved. I am trying harder than normal to stay balanced and get ready for my move to the coast. Unfortunately though, the depression is more severe than normal and each day is really a struggle. I have decided that maybe I do need to see a shrink and explore the possibilities of confronting my depression. My doctor is convinced that seeing a shrink would be pointless for me but what have I got to lose? If there is one thing that I am certain of, that is unless something changes, there will not be a follow up article to my next attempt.

Silence On Suicide Does More Harm Than Good

The Punch

by Lainie Anderson

June 2011

In July last year, the South Australian Coroner Mark Johns called for suicide statistics to be published alongside the road toll. Since that time, just over 100 South Australians have died on the state’s roads. More than 180 South Australians have killed themselves.

Despite Mr Johns’ call, suicide statistics remain unpublished. The topic by and large remains taboo. And desperate people keep taking their own lives because their mental illness isn’t properly treated, or because friends and family don’t have the confidence or the skills to raise this most delicate of subjects.

As a community, we’ve got to stop being so squeamish about suicide. It’s the single biggest cause of death for Australian females aged 15-34 and males 15-44. Latest statistics show that 2130 Australians took their own lives in 2009, compared to 1417 road deaths for the year and 1837 from skin cancer.

Yet while $7m is spent on mass media advertising to curb SA’s road toll alone, there’s nothing similar to curb the incidence of suicide. So what needs to change?

Experts like Mr Johns and SA’s Public Advocate John Brayley says the task is two-fold: prevention and awareness.

Around 70 per cent of suicides are associated with depression, so reducing the stigma of mental illness and expanding services are fundamental. Most other suicide victims are in a ‘situational crisis’, so timely access to crisis counseling is also essential.

Family First MLC Robert Brokenshire says SA’s services are simply too haphazard, and this week called for a Suicide Prevention Coordinator to be funded in Thursday’s State Budget.

In response, Health Minister John Hill revealed that his department has for some time been preparing a Suicide Prevention Strategy “to focus our efforts on the things that will have the most impact”.

It will include a new Suicide Prevention Advisory Committee, reporting directly to the Minister on the success (or otherwise) of measures, any gaps in services and ways to better coordinate government agencies.

That’s the first we’ve heard of it – and it’s a welcome initiative. But it still leaves us with the mammoth task of raising awareness and reducing the stigma of suicide in the wider population.

With church ministers and chaplains dealing with suicide on a weekly basis, the Moderator of the Uniting Church in South Australia, Rev Rob Williams, agrees. He too is calling for urgent action on suicide awareness as well as prevention, and the Uniting Church is now forming its own taskforce to drive the issue forward.

“There’s got to be more that we can do and we think a good place to start is lifting the lid on the secrecy surrounding suicide. Certainly, a sensitive and gentle shift in the way media look at these issues is something that we are very interested in.”

The Australian Press Council is interested too. It’s currently reviewing its 10-year-old reporting guidelines on suicide and will release the findings later this month.

A major issue, of course, remains the fear of copy-cat suicides. Some still believe that instead of preventing suicides, increased reporting will merely cause more. But with so many Australians taking their own lives, it’s time to mature our thinking on that score.

People who are truly intent on killing themselves have an abundance of information to make it happen – not least in the online world where traditional media guidelines are ignored with gusto.

The mainstream media has a responsibility to continue treating suicides carefully and sensitively, but surely one way to achieve that is by publishing regular figures (similar to the road toll) to keep the issue high on the public agenda.

As a community, we’re then sending a message that – like road deaths – suicides are preventable and we’re committed to curbing the toll. That’s got to be better than pretending 2000 Australians aren’t killing themselves each year.

Lifeline offers 24 hour crisis support on 13 11 14

Many Chronic Pain Sufferers Ponder Suicide

The Australian

Verity Edwards

June 2011

A NATIONAL study on chronic pain shows a third of the population suffers from the malady and, of those, 20 per cent have considered suicide and 5 per cent have attempted to take their lives.

Chronic Pain Australia president Coralie Wales, who commissioned the study of 2500 people, said most sufferers also felt stigmatised, believing they were perceived as drug addicts or bludgers. "The more stigmatised you feel, the more likely you are to commit suicide," she said.

Chronic pain is defined as that which persists for more than three months. It affects about 6.5 million Australians.

A 2007 Access Economics report estimated chronic pain cost the nation $34.3 billion a year in lost productivity and on health service demands.

Ms Wales said South Australia treated chronic pain sufferers worse than any other state, because they were forced to collect their medication from the Drug and Alcohol Services, alongside drug addicts.

"In South Australia it seems that anyone who takes an opiate seems to be a suspicious character and you have to be fearful of opiates," she said.

Ms Wales said the situation was so bad that chronic pain sufferers were forced to move interstate for better access to medication.

Colin Shaw moved from Adelaide to Brisbane a year ago to seek treatment for his cluster headaches. "Collecting medication alongside addicts was one of the most inhumane things. It was soul-destroying," he said.

He has attempted suicide four times.

Mr Shaw, 49, has suffered from up to six cluster headaches a day for more than 20 years. He says they are 10 times worse than migraines.

"It's like you've got a fire hose going through a small tube. It's like you're literally bursting, combined with a knife behind your eye," he said.

"It's just cost me so much. It's cost me my family, my social life, my work as a photographer. Everything is gone."

Related Articles:

What is Clinical Depression?

Silence On Suicide Does More Harm Than Good

Many Chronic Pain Sufferers Ponder Suicide

Clinical Depression - The Health Network

Beyond Blue (Australia)

Pollie Waffle

2011-06-05T18:16:00.001+10:00

Blah blah blah ...
Image by Petula Bloomfield

Have you ever wondered what happens when you send a letter to a politician? Do they read it? Do one of their lackeys reply for them or do they just bin your letter?

I must admit that I have received some responses from politicians that have been answered personally. In general though, most responses from politicians are stock standard replies that somehow miss the point of your concerns and end up being promotional advertising for their party.

I wrote to the Victorian Minister for Mental Health, The Hon. Mary Wooldridge MP and voiced my concerns that she was a keynote speaker at the 2011 VAADA Conference. (VAADA - The Victorian Alcohol and Drug Association Inc.). I thought it was a bit strange for a politician to speak at a conference held for professionals in the AOD industry considering her support for banning drug paraphernalia which most members of VAADA opposed.

My letter to Minister Wooldridge simply asked what her response would be if most of the experts at the VAADA conference either told her and/or presented evidence that the government's proposed banning of drug paraphernalia would do more harm than good. A question that really only has one answer.

I implore you to ask for the views of those who deal with drug issues on a daily basis. The 2011 VAADA Conference is an ideal event to find out what the professionals think about banning bongs. If anyone has an insight into the issue it’s those attending the conference. They are experts who spend their lives researching and dealing with drugs.

-Extract from my letter to Victorian Minister for Mental Health, The Hon. Mary Wooldridge MP

The theme of the conference was Transitions: people, policy, practice implies change and moving forward and the program will focus on the transitions and movements within the alcohol and other drug (AOD) field as we move towards 2020.

The conference asks the questions:

-What does the next decade hold for alcohol and other drug treatment?

-What are the current strengths and weaknesses of drug treatment?

-How can we reshape public debate about alcohol and drugs?

-How do we build a drug treatment system for the future?

How does Mary Wooldridge MP fit into this? The new Victorian Liberal government (with her support) wants drug paraphernalia banned although there is absolutely no evidence that it will achieve the desired outcome of reducing drug use. On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence though that not having access to certain drug using equipment can help cause severe harm to drug users. Why would VAADA choose someone like Mary Wooldridge to be a keynote speaker when the theme of the conference is about moving forward with better drug policies and wiser practices for dealing with drug users?

First up, here is my letter to the Victorian Minister for Mental Health.

Dear Mary

I notice you are a keynote speaker at the 2011 VAADA Conference. This year’s theme is Transitions: people, policy, practice which implies change and moving forward.

I would like to know your reaction if most of the attendees agree that our current drug policies have failed and need to change. Will you change your decision to ban drug paraphernalia (cannabis smoking equipment) if most of the attendees think it is a mistake? Will you take into account their views if they feel that banning bongs will not deter drug use and may actually cause serious harm or even death to some people?

Most importantly, will you reconsider your position if the latest quantified research clearly shows that what they say is true? Will you base your decision on evidence or anti-drug rhetoric and popular myths?

The fact is, most of the public do not want bongs banned. Either do most health professionals, drug experts and AOD workers. Although the general public mightn’t solely base their decision on scientific data, health professionals, drug experts and AOD workers do. Your decision on whether to ban bongs, needs to also be based on scientific data and the best available evidence. Currently, the evidence is overwhelmingly clear that removing safe drug taking equipment from sale does not deter drug use at all. Instead, it just encourages users to make homemade equipment that when shared may spread HIV/AIDS/Hep C through cut or burnt lips. Homemade bongs may also produce poisonous chemicals from burning inappropriate materials and cause damage to the health of users.

Trying to “Send a clear message that cannabis is harmful” by removing the sale of bongs is contradictory. Forcing users to make homemade bongs is already harmful. Removing bongs from sale is also counterproductive. Homemade bongs do not come with warnings or directions on how to get help. But including this information with any legal sale would target the very people you are trying to reach. The legal availability of bongs does not determine whether someone users cannabis or normalises it’s use. There are many factors involved why people use cannabis but the legal sale of bongs is not one of them. Have you considered that like needle exchanges, a bong shop could give health workers direct access to users? An elected official like you must do what’s best for the community and implement evidence based policies regardless of your own personal views or what you may think is popular.

Awaiting your reply.

Regards

Terry Wright

The Australian Heroin Diaries

On April 13, 2011, a full three months later, I received a response.

NOTE: Her email contained a scan of a printed letter. I have retyped the contents.

Mr Terry Wright

The Australian Heroin Diaries

terry.wright@optusnet.com.au

Dear Mr Wright

Thank you for your email dated 16 January 2011 regarding the Victorian Government's intention to ban the sale of cannabis smoking paraphernalia (bongs).

The ban on the sale of bongs was a Coalition election promise made by the Premier, the Hon Ted Baillieu MP in January 2010. This amendment to the Drugs Poisons and Controlled Substances Act would see Victoria's legislation become comprehensive in banning all types of illicit drug paraphernalia, aligning with a ban on the sale of cocaine kits and ice pipes.

Cannabis is the most commonly used illicit drug by young people in Victoria, and amongst regular cannabis users, bongs are the most common method for consumption. There is significant evidence on the risks of cannabis use to physical and mental health, particularly amongst those that commence cannabis use in their adolescence, and who use regularly.

By banning the sale of bongs the Government is demonstrating their commitment to preventing uptake and reducing the harms caused by cannabis use. The Government will also provide improved community information and education about the ban and the harmful effects of cannabis.

Yours sincerely

Hon Mary Wooldridge MP

Minister for Mental Health

Mmmm. Doesn't really answer my questions.

The more I read her response, the more I am convinced that it is a cut and paste job from previous letters.

What are your thoughts?

2007 Election Letter

As I was writing this, I remembered about another reply I got years ago. It's a cracker!

Back in 2007 with only 10 days until the federal election, I wrote to the Shadow Minister for Health, Nicola Roxon MP. Assuming a Labor victory, I asked her if Labor was going to follow on with Howard's "Tough on Drugs" strategy and implement any of the recommendations from The Bishop Report: “The Winnable War on Drugs”?

Dear Nicola

What is the ALP policy on health & drug reform? I did not find any clear indication from the ALP website.

Is a new Labor Party government going to follow Howard’s outdated U.S. Lead ‘War on Drugs’ approach or is the Labor Party going to use health & science as their basis for treating drug addicts?

Is your party supporting ‘harm minimisation’ or supporting Bronwyn Bishop’s latest report findings. After Bronwyn Bishop’s report, I read so many negative opinions and nearly every health professional who commented on it, was scathing of the contempt The Prime Minister and Bronwyn Bishop had for harm minimisation.

All I ask is for Labor to follow the European lead and use science, heath and experts to determine this serious issue of drug addiction and not use fear or morals to enforce a law & order policy. It has not worked for 30 years now and in fact only drives up crime, repression and misery.

Terry Wright

What I received was classic Roxon and unadulterated election spin. But what stunned me most was that it was sent only two days short of election day. Read it if you dare.

Dear Terry

Labor strongly condemns illicit drug use and supports a “tough on drugs” approach as a means of protecting Australians from the terrible consequences of drug use and abuse. This is evidenced by a series of recent Labor policy announcements.

Labor has committed to a National Strategy to crack down on methamphetamines or “ice.” This included:

a ban on importing ice pipes and other drug paraphernalia; and

either further restrictions or a complete ban on sale of pseudoephedrine - a key ingredient of methamphetamine - to minors;

work to restrict or ban the sale of pseudoephedrine over the internet; and

the extension of the special reference to the Australian Crime Commission to conduct a national investigation into the criminals engaged in the manufacture, sale and use of methamphetamine.

Labor has also committed to boost Australian Federal Police numbers by 500 including tackling the importation of illicit drugs.

Labor supports the aim of helping those who use illicit drugs become drug free. It must be recognised that illicit drug use and drug addiction in particular can be complex. Despite the best efforts of families, Governments, health professionals and community groups such as churches, a small number of people still engage in drug taking behaviour. This is a tragedy that families across the social spectrum face.

How best to deal with those who are resistant to intervention is not an easy task but society should not give up on trying to engage them in treatments that will see them become drug free and minimise the harm they do to themselves and their families. Labor believes that health professionals need to be able to use a range of prevention and intervention approaches and that these must be seen as part of a continuum that has freedom from drugs as an end goal.

Thank you for writing to Federal Labor about this important issue.

Yours sincerely

Nicola Roxon MP

Shadow Minister for Heatlh

Yes, it's real.

Related Articles

Tweeting VAADA 2011 - Stonetree Harm Reduction

VAADA Conference

Q & A: Tory Shepherd - Journalist

2011-05-24T12:08:00.000+10:00

Tory Shepherd: The Journalist in Thongs

Name: Tory Shepherd

Role: Journalist with News Ltd. Acting Editor - The Punch.

Date: May 2011

I must admit that I read The Punch quite a bit. And in my opinion, Tory Shepherd is the stand out amongst the journalistic team. I suppose it's her health perspective that attracts me to her writing although I find her other topics a tad more credible than her colleagues (I could say that being seriously cute might also have some influence but that would only cheapen this article). It's not often that you find a quality journalist in the tabloids with most of them taking positions in the more mature broadsheets. Tory Shepherd is an exception.

I have been chasing Tory for over a year now to be part of this Q&A series so it's a relief to finally get her views on the issue of drugs. Being the ever professional journalist, you may find some of her answers typical for someone who has a boss in the media but all the same, her answers are straight forward and logical. Thanks Tory for taking the time to participate. I can only imagine what sort of time restraints you operate under.

Bio from The Punch:

Tory Shepherd studied anthropology, then travelled, then studied some more, then travelled, then ended up with a cadetship at The Advertiser in 2006. She covered police rounds, politics, general news and health, while working at The Punch on the side. And doing some more travelling and studying. Now Tory is filling in for the other Tory (Maguire) as editor of The Punch. She is passionate about words, wine, chilli, soccer, and people (even the ones who hate her or keep praying for her soul). Follow her on Twitter - @ToryShepherd

QUESTIONS

NOTE:

These are Tory Shepherd’s personal views and not the views of her employer.

A report was published in the medical journal, The Lancet, where psychiatrists who specialise in addiction and legal/police officials with medical expertise were asked to rank the most dangerous 20 drugs. The factors used were physical harm to the user, addictive potential of the drug and the drug's overall impact on society. Cannabis, LSD and ecstasy didn’t even make the top 10. Does this affect your attitude towards their use?

This doesn’t affect my attitude; this merely reinforces what the science has shown for a long time.

Alcohol came number 5 and tobacco came number 9. Does this surprise you?

Yes. I would have thought they’d be higher. Most doctors would tell you that alcohol and ice are the main problem in emergency rooms.

Do you think anti-drug advertisements influence public views on drug use?

Depends which ones.

Should well known sportsmen and sportswomen be tested for non performance enhancing drugs?

I think there are many drugs that wouldn’t be considered performance enhancing that might still be used to advantage, so each drug should be judged on its own effects when it comes to testing sportspeople.

There is now more evidence than ever before that drug addiction is a physical condition and some people are more susceptible to becoming drug addicts. Do you think the public will ever fully understand this?

Nup. I think addiction will forever be a grey area, but that awareness can go a long way to helping non-addicts understand more about addiction.

Do you feel it’s someone right to take illicit drugs?

No, I don’t think it’s a ‘right’. Just like drinking wine is not a ‘right’.

Do you or have you used drugs(including alcohol) recreationally?

Yes.

Should cannabis be legalised or decriminalised?

Yes.

Should other illicit drugs be legalised or decriminalised?

It depends on the specific drugs.

John Howard wanted to remove Harm Minimisation as Australia’s primary drug strategy and implement a policy of Zero Tolerance. Do you think most Australians understand what Harm Minimisation really is?

I think harm minimisation was demonised, but most people I know understand what it is. But I hang out with a weird crowd.

From your experience, do fellow journalists actually believe the hype that the war on drugs is winnable?

I really can’t speak for anyone else.

The Greens are often unfairly attacked by other political groups for their “radical” drug policy. Do you have an opinion on this?

I think the Greens need to coordinate their message better and continue to refer to the science.

What are your thoughts on The Greens changing their drug policy to be more in line with the major political parties?

I think the Greens are in a position to pressure the major parties to change their drug policies to be more in line with the Greens.

Do you feel religion affects our drug policy?

Religion affects all policies, as many policymakers are religious.

Do you think a needle exchange program is needed in prisons?

Absolutely. And support to get off drugs.

Results from Heroin Assisted Treatment (HAT) programs have been very positive overseas and HAT is now more successful than detox, rehab and methadone for long term addicts. Is this program viable for Australia considering John Howard vetoed a HAT trial 11 years ago?

I think we should ignore anything vetoed over a decade ago, look at a cost/benefit analysis, and use whichever programs work best.

Do you think the media in Australia is responsible for much of the public’s views on drug issues.

I do, but I also think even the mainstream media is much more diverse than it is often given credit for.

Do you feel the government does enough when Australians overseas are given barbaric punishments for drug offences?

I think you could often see their stance as hypocritical; but at the same time I’m not privy to the behind-the-scenes negotiations. I strongly believe that they could be more outspoken against our near neighbours’ approach to the death penalty.

What do you think of politicians being labelled “Soft on Drugs” when they suggest alternatives to current drug strategies?

I think it’s easy, lazy, and populist.

Finally, if you were Prime Minister Tory Shepherd and you could change one law relating to drug policy or drug treatment, what would it be?

I’m not sure this would be one law; but where it’s drugs not evilness that’s the problem, I’d divert drug users away from gaol and into programs.

Related Articles (Q&A)

Kerry Wolf - Certified Methadone Advocate (USA)

Dr. James Rowe - Lecturer at RMIT, School of Global Studies, Social Science & Planning

Gino Vumbaca - Executive Director of the Australian National Council on Drugs

Sandra Kanck - Former South Australian MLC. South Australia spokesperson for Families and Friends for Drug Law Reform (FFDLR)

Tony Trimingham - Chief Executive Officer, Family Drug Support

Andrew Bartlett - Former Leader of the Australian Democrats and the Australian Senate. Candidate for the Greens in the 2010 Federal election.

Fiona Patten - Leader of The Australian Sex Party

Safe Injecting Room Hysteria Hits Victoria

2011-05-20T15:43:00.003+10:00

Picture this scenario. A cancer expert proposes a medical clinic that would not only save dozens of lives each year but save $millions in future costs through preventative care. The proposed clinic from the expert is backed up by thousands of highly qualified peers and he even produces evidence from 91 other similar clinics around the world that show how successful they have been. The local council approves the clinic by a massive 6-1 vote while a local radio station quotes dozens of residents supporting the idea.

What would you think if our state premier, in front of the media, told the cancer expert, his peers, the council leaders and supporters that the government won't be allowing the clinic to proceed and that instead, they will rely on extending current programs. No big deal, we have heard it all before at least a dozen times.

What if though, the government' s current programs - the ones they want to expand - have never actually worked? And I'm not just talking about not working in some suburb in Melbourne like Richmond but in every region, in every state and territory in Australia. Not even once has the premier's proposed strategies ever resulted in success in Australia But, what if the premier's suggestion has never even succeeded overseas although it has been the default policy for 40 years in thousands of states, counties and provinces in over 200 countries around the world? Now, that's just ridiculous...

OK, so it's not a cancer clinic but the principle is still the same. If it was actually a cancer clinic, the public, the medical profession, the media and the opposition would be demanding the resignation of the premier and his cronies. What leader would ignore thousands of medical experts and hundreds of scientific studies and instead continue on with a policy that has failed for 40 years and annually costs tens of $billions, kills dozens of people, sends thousands of non violent Australians to prison and causes more societal carnage than any other policy in modern history? The answer is simply stunning. No leader would be that irresponsible, reckless and idiotic to ignore the massive amount of scientific and empirical evidence ... unless it has to do with illicit drugs.

Why do governments ignore the scientific research behind illicit drugs? For example, why would Ted Baillieu oppose a safe injecting clinic in Richmond so vehemently when Sydney's MSIC has proven itself, again and again through independent, scientific research? If there was ample evidence for a cancer clinic, Uncle Ted wouldn't even hesitate but since it's about drugs, all advice from experts and professionals is simply rejected like a Buck's Fizz CD at a Faith No More concert.

Victorian Premier Ted Baillieu refuses to approve the state's first heroin injecting centre because he doesn't want to be seen as soft on drugs, a key drugs policy adviser says.

Yarra councillors voted 6-1 on Tuesday night for an injecting room to tackle drug-related problems in the inner Melbourne suburb of Richmond.

Mr Baillieu insists his government won't sanction the establishment of an injection room along the lines of the Sydney facility that has operated in Kings Cross for 10 years.

"I recognise there's a problem and it's one of the reasons why we want to have more police on the streets," he told Fairfax Radio.

"We haven't supported injecting rooms, we won't support injecting rooms, and I don't support the normalisation of any of this sort of behaviour."

-Sydney Morning Herald

One of Baillieu's answers was to put more police on the streets. This type of response might have been appropriate in the 1970s/1980s but we have had 40 years of successive failures, hundreds of studies slamming the tactic and no proof whatsoever that the suggestion would help the drug problem. In fact, every single scientific study or research project has shown us that an increased police presence simply moves the problem to neighbouring suburbs or a new location. Relying on brute force tactics like law enforcement is not just lazy politics but ineffective at best and dangerous at worst. Is this really the best solution an elected leader can come up with? Decisions like this would not be tolerated in the private sector so why are they allowed when you're the elected premier? This isn't about profit/loss statements or whether company XYZ should increase their marketing budget for SE Asia. The cold, hard reality from decisions about issues like the proposed safe injecting clinic in Richmond can have an enormous impact on families and those who need help the most.

Prof. David Penington said Mr Baillieu's proposal to solve the problem through law enforcement would not work.

"Mr Baillieu is very firmly of the view that everything can be handled by law enforcement," Prof Penington told AAP.

"It's an instinctive reaction.

"It's a problem that is not going to go away with law enforcement. It's something that law enforcement has failed to eliminate over the last 50 years.

"They just fear that anything seen as soft on drugs will increase their use, but in fact, if we look at the evidence from other places and the successful program in Sydney, there isn't any evidence of increased use."

-Professor David Penington, a senior fellow at Melbourne's Grattan Institute

THE CURRENT REALITY

Our antiquated drug laws are devastating the human race, stockpiling addicts in overcrowded prisons and creating havoc for those with mental disorders. The irony is that although only a very small percentage of society end up with major drug problems, the bulk of drug users never have a health problem and only ever run into trouble when they cross paths with law enforcement. The tiny group of troubled drug users are the focus for most of our public policy, the media's attention and the bulk of police resources. Like alcohol abusers, the problematic drug user require most of the available help but after decades of anti-drug propaganda and politicians taking advantage of the publics misguided views usually force politicians into retaining useless and often dangerous drug policies that mostly just appease nervous parents, conservatives and semi-religious community groups.

Those who do end up with an addiction or a drug problem have become fodder for headline writers and self promoting politicians. Gone are the days when addicts were diagnosed with respect by doctors and treated like any other person with a medical issue. Now they are forced into rancid, run down shooting galleries or laneways, away from emergency services. It's bad enough that most users do not know what's in their stash but denying them a safe place to inject it just adds that extra self loathing and self hatred for having to do things to themselves that many of them still can't fully comprehend.

Being a junkie is as distressful and overwhelming as it gets. And when the despair from your daily ritual to find money also includes being hunted down by military style cops, your dose becomes all that more important. Just try and imagine how knowing there are strangers looking for you, pumped full of hatred because their commander-in-chiefs and our elected leaders publicly insist that you are the scourge of society. Would that affect your state of mind? Why would anyone think that addicts living this life are somehow happy with their situation?

SHOCKED IN MY JOCKS

I'm certainly no fan of MTR's Steve Price but what do you say when he writes an article for the Herald-Sun supporting a Safe Injecting Clinic in Richmond? Maybe this is what happens when an intelligent man starts to read between the lines of the usual anti-drug rubbish put out in the trash media? Maybe this is what happens when you are confronted more often with articles based on evidence and facts? Who knows? Whatever the reason, I have to say to Steve Price, well done for an excellent article.

PUBLIC LAMBASTING

I am really getting fed up with trash media like the Murdoch sewerage pit that spends hundreds of hours looking for new ways to degrade drug users, especially those who are addicts or have HIV/AIDS. It's always the same; some nasty, cutting headline based on the warped opinion of some religious nutter, bigoted politician, hate group etc. Or it's meant to shock us about how much some program costs.

Family groups yesterday said they objected to the program.

"We are against both the needle exchange and the condom programs," said Terri Kelleher of the Australian Family Association.

"People aren't making the best decision when they are on drugs, and therefore shouldn't be supplied with condoms. There's no guarantee they are going to use them anyway."

-The Herald Sun - You Pay $100,000 Bill For Addicts' Sex And Disease Control

Everyday, there's some derogative article that describes drug users/addict-dealers/addicts etc. as a major threat to society. Especially to our precious children. How many times have you read about an innocent 1-2 year old being in the same room as their scum-of-the-earth parents are taking their deadly methadone or even worse, selling drugs? Does a 2 year old really notice these events while they desperately try to turn Ken or Barbie into contortionists? Do kids this age really stop midway through the TellyTubbies to enquire if the drugs for sale are as good as the previous batch from last week?

Will someone please think about the children!

-Helen Lovejoy (Wife of The Reverend Timothy Lovejoy)

One of the main targets for criticism are Needle Exchange Programs (NEPs). Never mind the fact that they pay for themselves many times over, some people just cannot cope with the idea of providing clean injecting equipment for drug users. Some groups even object to providing condoms, so there's doom and gloom everywhere.

Crime Victims Support Association's Noel McNamara said it was "disgusting" taxpayers were funding drug use.

"We're making it easier for people to go on drugs," he said.

"It's appalling that this money is being spent on drug users rather than on people fighting cancer or diabetes."

-Sunday Herald Sun - Needle Exchange Sparks Hot Spot Fears For Footscray And Frankston

The US under G.W. Bush banned federal funding to any group that provided syringes or condoms (including HIV/AIDS support groups). Healthcare groups had to spend their funding on abstinence only programs following the "Just Say No" style or groups that promoted no sex before marriage. By the end of his term as president, the US had 1000% more people with HIV/AIDS and blood borne diseases than Australia. Obama changed all that and luckily the rate of drug users and sex workers with blood borne diseases is dropping rapidly. Although the federal laws have changed, it is still illegal in some US states to buy syringes without a prescription. Interestingly, John Howard was a big supporter of US style drug policy.

During the Festival of Dangerous Ideas in 2009, Lawyer, Greg Barns blamed the media for much of the drug hysteria in Australia. And he is dead right. The muck raking might help them sell newspapers and keep silly opinion writers in a job but the end results are deadly. As Barns pointed out, many people get all their information from these media groups and after years of telling the same lies, most people start to believe them as facts. Where's the social responsibility?

Melbourne's 9000 overdoses a year

-The Herald Sun - Peter Mickelburough

How are our elected politicians supposed to introduce sensible, evidence based policies with the media stirring up so much controversy about an issue that has been twisted for at least 40 years? Even before the term "War on Drugs" was coined by US President, Richard Nixon, we had "Reefer Madness" and other silly fairy tales circulating like they were facts.

Shame of our Needle Town

Sunday Herald Sun - Hamish Heard

But times have changed. Most drug experts now agree that we cannot continue with a "War on Drugs" mentality but it has to start with some brave politicians to risk putting science before popularity. Luckily, tt has actually started albeit slowly. I just hope Ted Baillieu can be mature enough to support evidence based policy and stand his ground against the biggest fear of all ... being called "Soft on Drugs" by opposing politicians.

Related Articles

Herald-Sun and It’s Readers Hit a New Low

Even the Truth About Drugs are Illegal

Drug Hysteria & The Great Doctor Witch Hunt

Bucket Head of the Year Awards - 2010

ALREADY!!! - Another Lib Makes a Dickhead of Himself

Has Paul Sheehan Written the Worst Article Ever?

Yarra City Council Votes In Favour Of Supervised Injecting Rooms

Business Shoots Down Melbourne Injecting Room

Once Again, Barnett Proves He is a Liar

2011-05-17T13:28:00.001+10:00

Colin Barnett has declared the increasing use of illegal drugs - in combination with binge drinking - is at the heart of Perth's record of street violence.

-The West Australian

Er, sorry Colin but drugs alone rarely cause people to be violent. Booze has officially taken that honour. In fact, alcohol is by far, the most violent drug on earth. Never before in the history of man has a drug proven to cause so much violence, aggression and crime. And to top it off, it's legal, easy to buy and heavily endorsed by celebrities, sports stars and politicians.

How many people do you know who become violent on ecstasy, cannabis or heroin? Even the so called "ice epidemic" causing violence is a myth.

Interviewer: My guests today in Melbourne University Up Close are Associate Professor John Fitzgerald and Dr. Fances Bramwell.

So, John, essentially what you are saying is that, in Australia there is no epidemic of ice use.

Associate Professor John Fitzgerald, Principal Research Fellow at the School of Population Health, University of Melbourne: Yeah, and it is not to say that ice use is not problematic.

-Melbourne University Up Close Episode 15

Alcohol accounts for 97% of all violence whilst under the influence of a substance. Illicit drugs ranks a lowly 3%. And out of that 3%, sleep depravation from amphetamine type drugs is responsible for half of that, not the violent reaction from the drug itself. With less than 1.5% of substance induced violence associated to illicit drugs, it is easy to assume that 99% of those classed as being aggressive are naturally violent regardless of any substance they may have taken.

Drinking is not new - and I don't defend or excuse that in any sense. But excessive drinking and combining with drugs is clearly leading to more violent behaviour

-Colin Barnett

Any drug taker will tell you the simple truth ... drugs cause the opposite reaction of being violent. Many of them bring on confidence, friendship, empathy, sexuality, pleasantness, a need to communicate, feelings of euphoria, camaraderie etc. Other drugs make you drowsy and uninterested in anything confrontational. Others will make you "trip" where everything around you becomes magical and exciting. No drug I know of gives the user any need to be aggressive or violent ... except booze.

But what clearly stands out in this article is the contradictory comments by the premier compared to those who actually patrol the streets - The Police.

WA Police have emphasised alcohol rather than drugs in the debate about violence in entertainment precincts that has raged after recent tragic incidents in Northbridge and Cottesloe.

Operation Unite commander Supt Scott Higgins said the root of violence was complex but alcohol was a consistent theme.

-The West Australian

Is this because the premier's drug of choice is booze ... A dangerous drug that harms people thousands of times more often than street drugs?

"With people drinking in parks, homes, in pubs and clubs, whether they're taking drugs or not taking drugs, the consistent thing is alcohol," he said.

-The West Australian

Or is it because the drug he prefers to use causes far more carnage to society than any illicit drug?

What I really want to know is why the opposition and the media has not challenged Barnett to these ludicrous claims? There is no evidence whatsoever or scientific report ever produced that associates the effects of illicit drugs with excessive violence. In fact, there are only two examples of violence resulting from drugs. One is when drugs are used in conjunction with alcohol and the other is in the business side of selling drugs. Ironically, both of these are purely the result of government policy.

I'm sorry Colin but you are once again on record, lying about the issue of illicit drugs. Are you really that arrogant that you think the vast majority of Western Australians don't have the ability to check your claims on the internet? Or are you just so out of touch with reality that you think the internet is just some gizmo from a sc-fi novel? My guess is that you know darn well that the failed policy of drug prohibition has wreaked havoc on society for nearly 50 years but since it continues to win you votes, you will keep pretending to support it. And we wonder why the public thinks that Australian politics has gone to shit?

Premier Says Drugs Have Role In Violence

The West Australian

Gareth Parker And Gabrielle Knowles,

May 2011

Colin Barnett has declared the increasing use of illegal drugs - in combination with binge drinking - is at the heart of Perth's record of street violence.

As WA Police continued to emphasise the role of alcohol amid a weekend crackdown that saw 435 people charged in Operation Unite, the Premier said drinking had always been an issue but the level of illegal drug taking was new.

He also suggested young West Australians' higher incomes relative to the rest of the nation could be fuelling the drug abuse.

"There is no doubt income levels in WA are probably $20,000 more than the rest of the country and there are a lot of people, often young people, who are on high incomes," Mr Barnett said.

"Many of them might be fly-in, fly-out mine workers who are in Perth in their week off, they have a lot of money to spend and they party too hard.

"Drinking is not new - and I don't defend or excuse that in any sense. But excessive drinking and combining with drugs is clearly leading to more violent behaviour."

WA Police have emphasised alcohol rather than drugs in the debate about violence in entertainment precincts that has raged after recent tragic incidents in Northbridge and Cottesloe.

Operation Unite commander Supt Scott Higgins said the root of violence was complex but alcohol was a consistent theme.

"With people drinking in parks, homes, in pubs and clubs, whether they're taking drugs or not taking drugs, the consistent thing is alcohol," he said.

At the weekend, police charged 435 people with 462 offences, including 391 traffic offences, 10 assaults and five assaults on public officers.

Supt Higgins said police were most concerned by the number of motorists drink-driving, with 138 caught driving over the limit, including 18 charged with driving under the influence.

In addition, a Victoria Park man has been charged over a one-punch assault in Northbridge that left a 26-year-old with head injuries.

The man hit his head on the pavement and lost consciousness after he was allegedly king-hit outside the Republic Nightclub in Shafto Lane about 12.30am on Saturday.

Police claim the attacker, also 26, was thrown out of the nightclub seconds earlier and allegedly punched the other man after mistaking him for someone else.

NOTE:

Colin Barnett was the winner of the 2009 Bucket Head of the Year award. Here it is again just to refresh your memory.

THE BUCKETHEAD OF THE YEAR - 2009

The ultimate anti-drug zealot who made a huge impact on the downfall of rational thinking and sensibility in 2009. Unlike the category for Most Dangerous Anti-Drug Campaigner, The Bucket Head of the Year can be literally a “Bucket Head” Think of Rove, Bronwyn Bishop, Daryl Somers etc. They might be dangerous or just plain stupid but they must be worthy of scorn and criticism.

Colin Barnett

WA Premier (LP)

Trying to top last year’s winner, Anne Bressington, is not easy but WA premier, Colin Barnett has made a gallant attempt. Introducing new laws infamous for failing globally, to replace existing laws that have been succeeding could be interpreted as brave and insightful. Unfortunately for Colin “Barney Rubble” Barnett, it wasn’t. It was seen for what it really was ... an out-of-touch old man clinging desperately to his stagnant ideology and putting faith into strategies that have failed miserably for the last 40-60 years which are rapidly on their way out. Only a brave man indeed would remove a modern, successful drug policy because of myths like “The Gateway Theory” and other junk science. Someone should point out to Barney that the internet(yes Barney, that TV looking thing on your desk) means politicians can no longer just say what they want and the public have to take it as gospel.

Barney is also introducing “Stop and Search” laws, claiming it will cut down on street violence and anti-social behaviour by seeking out those carrying knives or drugs. In certain designated areas, police can stop and search any person without provision of reasonable suspicion. What the hell drugs have to with weapons is yet to quantified.

Barney is a dying breed which probably sums up the current Liberal Party and some of the Labor Party. It's not that his drug policies are just useless and counter-productive but they are also dangerous. To underplay the deaths and misery caused by these policies for political gain or for personal ideology is disgraceful and should be seen as a criminal act. A “Tough on Drugs” mentality has caused massive damage in every country that adopts this approach and after 100 years of drug prohibition globally, some common sense is finally emerging. Sadly, this doesn’t include Colin Barnett.

On a lighter side ... man, is he funny or what? That bloodhound face looking like it was made from plastic. The monotone political rhetoric putting TV viewers to sleep. Walking around Northbridge at night to prove it is family friendly only to be confronted with some druggie asleep in a doorway. But it was an accidental camera pan of several heavyweight body guards that blew his cover as the brave leader walking the streets alone. And of course, the references to old, debunked urban myths about drugs that had much of WA’s youth rolling around the floor in hysterics and experts scratching their heads in bewilderment. Good stuff, Barney.

I proudly present to you, this years BucketHead of the Year for 2009 ... WA Premier, Colin Barnett.

Related Articles

WHAT?!!! ... Another Dickhead Lib from WA

WA Do Not Want Tougher Cannabis Laws from 1981

The Final Proof - Colin Barnett is a Dickhead

The Liberal Party on Drugs

Drug Bins in WA Brings Out the Nutters

WA Liberals - Drug Policy Blues

Debate - All Drugs Should Be Legalised

2011-05-16T18:32:00.001+10:00

About Intelligence Squared Australia

The program:

An annual series of provocative and informative live debates on the hot-button concerns of the day.

The goals:

The goals of IQ² Australia are to:

raise the level of public discourse on our most challenging issues;
provide a new forum for intelligent discussion, grounded in facts and informed by reasoned analysis;
transcend the toxically emotional and the reflexively ideological; and
encourage recognition that the opposing side has intellectually respectable views.

The approach:

To take the traditional 'grammar' of Oxford-style debate seriously, with one side proposing and the other side opposing a sharply-framed motion. Three speakers - leading thinkers and authorities on the issues - argue on each side of the motion.

After the formal arguments, the debate is thrown open to the floor for debate and questions, triggering a lively interchange among the speakers and audience members. A well-known moderator keeps the proceedings orderly.

Each side attempts to persuade the audience to vote their way. This adversarial context is electric, adding drama and excitement. The live audience will vote on the motion both before and after hearing the arguments, so there is a clear measure of how far people have actually been swayed.

The where and when:

The debates are held in Sydney at the City Recital Hall Angel Place and in Melbourne at Melbourne Town Hall. Doors open at 6:00pm, the debate begins at 6:30pm 6:45pm and will end promptly at 8:30pm.

As in London and New York, the live audience - including the movers and shakers of Sydney’s media, policy and business worlds - may choose to continue the discussion at some of the city’s fine local restaurants.

Note from The Australian Heroin Diaries
32.3% of people were undecided before the debate. After the debate, less than 3% of them disagreed while a whopping 22.2% agreed with legalising all drugs. The end result had 69% agreeing with legalising all drugs while only 23% disagreed. 8% were still undecided.

All drugs should be legalised

10 May 2011 - Sydney

The use of mind-altering substances has been part of the human experience for millennia.

While accepted within the contexts of spirituality and medicine, these drugs have been proscribed regularly when used purely for recreational purposes.

In most cases, prohibition has failed to curb demand and the provision of illicit drugs has become the lucrative trade of organised crime – with the associated ills of corruption, violence and health risks.

Some people urge tighter restrictions on all recreational drugs as the cure for social ills linked to their use and abuse. Others argue that all drugs should be legal – subject only to prudent regulation.

Poll results

At each IQ² debate the audience is polled on the topic, both before and after the debate takes place. Here are the results for this debate:

	Pre-debate poll	Post-debate poll
For:	46.8%	69%
Undecided:	32.3%	8%
Against:	20.9%	23%

Watch the video

The video for this debate will be availble soon.

Speakers

For:

Nicholas Cowdery AM QC BA LLB was the NSW Director of Public Prosecutions running the largest prosecuting agency in Australia from 1994 to 2011. He became a Barrister in 1971 and was Public Defender in Papua New Guinea for four years. As a Barrister in private practice in Sydney, he specialised in criminal law appearing in many high profile cases including the prosecutions of the late Justice Lionel Murphy (of the High Court of Australia) and of the late Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen (former Premier of the State of Queensland). He is a member of the NSW Sentencing Council and the Advisory Committee, Sydney Institute of Criminology and the National Advisory Committee, Centre for Transnational Crime Prevention, University of Wollongong. He is the author of Getting Justice Wrong: myths, media and crime.
Wendy Harmer is a prominent Australian broadcaster, entertainer and veteran of countless international comedy festivals. She has presented top-rating morning radio and has hosted, written and appeared in a wide variety of TV shows including ABC's Big Gig and In Harmer's Way. Harmer is the author of several books for adults, two plays and a series of children's books. She has also hosted the television Logie Awards and has been a regular newspaper and magazine contributor.
Dr Alex Wodak AM is a physician and has been Director of the Alcohol and Drug Service, St Vincent’s Hospital since 1982. His major interests include prevention of HIV among injecting drug users, treatment of drug users and drug policy reform. Dr Wodak is President of the Australian Drug Law Reform Foundation and was President of the International Harm Reduction Association (1996-2004). He helped establish the first needle syringe program (1986) and the first medically supervised injecting centre (1999) in Australia when both were pre-legal. Dr Wodak helped establish the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre (1987) and the Australian needle syringe program annual survey (1995).

Against:

Jade Lewis is a former drug addict who now campaigns and educates against use of illegal drugs. As a young teenager she was a champion junior athlete who competed internationally, and won the WA Doug Hancy Award, Athlete of the Year and Junior Sportswoman of the Year. Her records remain unbeaten in Western Australia. Her later heroin addiction, criminal behaviour and volatile relationships are recorded in her book, Golden Haze. She now educates at schools on positive relationships and runs a program for women prisoners.
Dr Greg Pike is the Director of the Southern Cross Bioethics Institute in Adelaide, South Australia where he focuses primarily on the influence of bioethics on public policy development. He trained as a physiologist with a PhD in muscle electrophysiology, becoming Hospital Research Scientist at the Royal Adelaide Hospital in the Department of Surgery. He is the Chairman of the Board of the Australian Drug Treatment and Rehabilitation Program and a member of the Institute on Global Drug Policy, has served as a Deputy Member on the SA Council on Reproductive Technology and was a member of the Australian Health Ethics Committee for the 2006-09 triennium.
Paul Sheehan is one of the most thought-provoking commentators in Australia today. A columnist for The Sydney Morning Herald, Sheehan is a prominent writer and has written on the bigger debate about the politics of cultural diversity in contemporary Australia. He is one of Australia's best-selling authors with three best-selling books including, most recently, the number-one best-seller, Girls Like You.

Chair:

Dr Simon Longstaff has a PhD in Philosophy from Cambridge. Prior to becoming the inaugural Executive Director of St James Ethics Centre in 1991, Dr Longstaff worked in the Northern Territory in the Safety Department of BHP subsidiary, GEMCO, lectured at Cambridge University and consulted to the Cambridge Commonwealth and Overseas Trusts. His book Hard Cases, Tough Choices was published in 1997. Dr Longstaff was inaugural President of the Australian Association for Professional & Applied Ethics and is a Fellow of the World Economic Forum. He is Chairman of Woolworths Limited Corporate Responsibility Panel and AMP Capital Socially Responsible Investment Advisory Committee and serves as Member on a number of Board Committees.

Drug Free Australiaʼs Dr. Stuart Reece & Culpable Abuse Of Patients

2011-05-09T12:13:00.000+10:00

If you're part of the movement that opposes vaccines for kids, a homeopathy witch doctor or one of the dangerous, anti-harm minimisation loon squad, then the chances are you have been targeted sometime by Paul Gallagher. As one of Australia's leading skeptics, Paul Gallagher is especially passionate about those who reinterpret science as some kind of self righteous crusade usually involving their religious beliefs or personal ideology. Read on as Paul uncovers some disturbing truths that feel more akin to a science fiction novel than something that can happen in a so called, advanced society.

Dr. Stuart Reece.

DRUG FREE AUSTRALIAʼS DR. STUART REECE & CULPABLE ABUSE OF PATIENTS

By Paul Gallagher

A critical look at faith based practices and superstition used in the abuse of heroin dependent patients, in conjunction with poorly monitored naltrexone prescription.

Dr. Reece continues to practice today and still claims to hold “a world safety record” in naltrexone prescription, despite over 25 fatalities in 20 months.

He continues to write in the anti-drug, ambitiously named Journal of global drug policy and practice. See final pages.

We begin with publications from just after Dr. Reece found the QLD Medical Tribunal indefinitely adjourned his case.

This easy to access and a pleasure to read, embedded PDF of Focus magazine has two relevant stories. On page 1 we meet Graham Preston who was jailed back in June 2003 for pro-life antics. His sole direction was Proverbs 24, verse 11: “Rescue those being led away to death”. Note the bias in how his story is reported and please understand this is an excellent example of using religion to cement tribal cohesion. Now read the story on page 2: Naltrexone Doctor Vindicated and remind yourself of the above proverb. Dr. Reeceʼs “feelings were hurt”. No news on how the 25 corpses are feeling.

For the record, not only is it entirely irrelevant to launch ad hominem attacks on the application of demonstrably efficacious therapy {MMT}, but the claims made have been followed up and found to be fallacious. These statements simply reinforce that fundamentalist indoctrination and zealotry of such lethal extent is resilient to rehabilitation. Attacking an evidence based therapy indicates his aim was never about adding to the rehabilitation arsenal. It was about a personal vendetta over old funding disagreements and his religious conviction that certain policies are immoral. Science is immoral, evolution is immoral, democracy is immoral... Anything not backed by bible blubbery is of course, immoral.

In reality the QLD Health Practitioners Tribunal adjourned indefinitely over the 25 deaths at his bastard baptising, demon exorcising, sin stopping, faith healing hands. Letʼs consider a more expansive view, given that he has since claimed multiple times – and before a Parliamentary inquiry – to “hold the world safety record” in administering the very treatment he killed 25 Aussies with. Like most junk scientists his arguments arenʼt about his supporting evidence, as much as about misinforming people about aspects of medicine he considers immoral. Much like homeopathy, Christian fundamentalism as a medical option [christian science] must discredit that which exposes itʼs lies: simple, ordinary evidence. Dr. Reece is the gentleman who coined the term “hedonistic delirium” to describe modern democracies. Or the simply gorgeous: “Sometimes the best way forward, is the way back” in a brave attempt to argue pre-industrial revolution societies were superior.

Okay – letʼs begin. By 1999 Australia knew naltrexone was far from safe despite “miraculous” stories of recovery. Wodak and Hall discussed the evidence in an editorial in the MJA, that also briefly noted the role of the media in confusing community attitudes. Stuart Reece would never forget this and has “blamed” not only these scientists but projected responsibility for his disgusting conduct onto these very individuals. He has slandered both of these brilliant internationally renowned scientists whilst under Parliamentary protection accusing Hall of “scientific fraud” [Page 61/FHS 55 ]. And he has ignored the Hippocratic oath in his quest to slander and destroy Dr. Wodakʼs reputation.

In September 1999 after being raided and threatened with closure he claimed the QLD government would have blood on itʼs hands if he didnʼt get his way. 20 months later, 25 patients were dead because he got exactly what he wanted. He was raided and closed down again, much to the ire of the Christian Democrat Party – whose “federal drug policy” proudly claims individual Aussies have no civil rights in this respect. Biblical love is in abundance whenever Dr. Reece is faced with evidence. Three months after claiming 25 “drug addicts” died as “part of a conspiracy”, Reece dropped all pretense and did the media circuit as a faith healer. In fact these “patients” earned him thousands of dollars per head only to be prescribed addictive benzodiazapines – later to contribute to cause of death – as the untrialled and untested naltrexone failed. Had basic support – such as a contact or counseling – been available, heroin overdoses would be highly unlikely. As I noted above, this was never about helping addicts so much as winning a moral argument, and the lucrative contracts that must one day follow.

In October 2005 Christian conservative Tony Abbott MP Liberal (then Federal Health Minister) funded Drug Free Australia to the tune of $600,000. They breached almost every condition under which they were awarded the funding, ultimately emerging as right wing lobbyists – not therapists – and set about promoting Creationism, Conservatism and Punishment for all. They are devout followers of Swedenʼs zero tolerance policy and the USA hardliners [open letter] who cling to lucrative contracts and powerful identities. Reece, a supporter of biblically driven abstinence and Texas trained fundamentalist was back with backing.

By April 2007 Dr. Reece was testifying to a Parliamentary Inquiry that the immoral policies that permitted condoms – the real cause behind AIDS – clean needles, opioid therapy for addicts, non-punitive cannabis laws, harm reduction and general tolerance for ill Aussies would be our doom. In utter amazement the Senate Standing Committee stared as this “expert” whoʼd introduced himself by saying “I certainly know the science”, displayed a photo of “the archaeological site of Sodom” and a tree with snakes instead of branches. [Page 33/FHS 27]. The point to this? “There will be consequences”.

As reported in Crikey by Ray Moynihan our world expert decided the “disease drugs, sex and rock-n-roll” was the problem at hand. Asked about the safety of naltrexone, Dr. Reece immaturely attacked the internationally renowned scientist, Dr. Wodak [Page 59/FHS54], who specialiseʼs in blood born viruses and epidemiology – which means he supports condoms, clean syringe access and used syringe collection: dire threats to our very civilisation, claimed Reece. This childish ad hominem approach is common despite the fact entire shires with dozens of dispensaries and hundreds of clients report no methadone deaths. A minority report death, and methadone is one toxic substance on a list of many. It is taken under supervision, immediately after being prepared by a pharmacist. Compared to 25 deaths at the hands of one man in a year and a half, a scattering of deaths across hundreds of outlets in every state, is of no significance. Dr. Albert Stuart Reeceʼs real world record is clearly in reckless fatalities.

How did Committee Chairperson react to this insanity? Bronwyn Bishop slandered and abused public health scientists yet gushed uncontrollably in support of Dr. Reeceʼs voodoo. A pre-determined agenda in what was billed as the most important family relevant inquiry of Howardʼs government spoke volumes. Bishops final report was rejected nationwide by all but religious fundamentalists and Christian lobbyists. Read my lips. Not one single publically funded treatment or advocacy agency in our nation missed the opportunity to criticise in scathing terms her “report”. Which you may remember from coverage of her wish to “take the children” of drug users with “absolutely no chance” of reunion.

Gordon Moyes also forgot about Proverbs 24, Verse 11 shouting praise for naltrexone despite the grave concerns of our medical community about it remaining unregulated – but lucrative for the same people year in, year out. When the Medical Journal of Australia exposed the fact these same misguided faith healers were not reporting adverse reactions – despite TGA requirements under the Special Access loophole demanding it of them – Dr. Gods team were having none of this “academic stuff”. Drug Free Australia actually published a sorta, kinda rebuttal. And yes, adorning the page is direct reference to Dr. Stuart Reece himself. In deeply offensive mockery boasting how Reece “studies” death rates post treatment they entitled their piece of twaddle, Australia could be the biggest loser.

I could go on and on, and the above is a cut down sanitised version sparing you Dr. Reeceʼs sickening obsession with teenage and childhood sex and sexual assault, murder, violence... all due to “the depraved advertising industry” which catalysed “the disease sex, drugs and rock-n-roll”. Advertising womenʼs nudity, outside of “a strictly medical context” is, in his ever so wise [and medically qualified] eyes, “incredibly powerful pornography.”

Today, a decade plus since this intellectual repugnance began, Reece is front and centre as a pin up boy for religious fundamentalism. Three years ago he promised Parliament with a blinding flash of Peacock Terminology that his results were “statistically powerful” and “revolutionary”. Of course, there are no results. Itʼs the same certainty that only faith can sustain. If prayer cures homosexuality, addiction is a certainty. His latest work “proves” naltrexone is safer than opioid therapy. As reported on ABCʼs 7:30 Report in 2006 multiple disciplinary teams have steadily found naltrexone has a fatality rate over four times that of opioid therapy. Dr. Reece, and others who seek funding and massive contracts seem to have a magic formula no others can find.

My point to this indulgent diversion is that Australia is no stranger to standing back with folded arms and by not acting as we would expect a just society to act, reinforces the misguided belief that religion is the “untouchable” tool. For over ten years a huge part of our public health system has been exploited in the name of religion. How have we allowed progressively malignant superstition to dictate to us on morality? Given the example set by the USA why are we intentionally expanding and funding fundamentalist religions? Why do we insist that junk Christian science is “harmless” and ones own choice, in the same way we insist alternative medicine is harmless and “an informed choice”?

Only in recent years has the orchestrated rejection of default respect for religion found a strong voice. We no longer accept in total the authority of those who use God as an `excuse – as we see done above – but we still have a very long way to travel intellectually. I would also argue that we must not be led further astray by those who use the “F Word” – family values – so liberally. The value of any family is much like the institution of marriage. Place it above human rights and human beings will be abused in the name of subjective value judgement.

So my greatest question is along the lines of concerns already raised: the intentional maligning of science. In its typical tradition, the splintered and fractured divergences of Christianity that stoke the engine furnace of conservative fundamentalism invite steadily more bizarre practices into its protective fold. Only a fool would accept abundant taxation and Equal Opportunity exemption is not exploited and as with all power, will be jealously guarded and arrogantly inflated.

How long before we as a community demand legislators acknowledge that default cap in hand respect and trust is fraught with risk already evidenced by the abuse of our vulnerable, flagrant law breaches, financial scams, bigotry, insouciant discrimination and, as seen with orchestrated child sexual abuse, an excuse for crushing immorality? What future can we expect if we allow this illusion of god-given elitism to increasingly include rejection of realities that conflict with demonstrably false and absurd beliefs? How long before Equal Opportunity exemption includes rejection of educational standards? Is not freedom of religion at risk of abandoning its duty to community cohesion such that Christians may enjoy an escape from reality?

Already we allow home schooling that is overtly biblical and anti-ʼmodernityʼ. We permit dietary restrictions that run in direct contrast to national daily nutritional intake requirements, never questioning if the children starved of iron and protein this way are simply pawns in their parents deluded vacuum. We allow parental denial of the administration of medical technology that would save a childʼs life: a simple blood transfusion. Anti-vaccination conspiracy theorists promote “conscientious objection”. We fund schools not to educate students but to fill their minds with archaic ideals. Ideals so easily refuted by merely looking around our Fair Go nation that a great deal of supporting intellectualism is spent mocking, discrediting and misinforming on the topic of science.

The Christian god demands he be loved above and beyond any and all – including family members. Having perhaps not insignificant experience fending off ʻchapter and verseʼ arguments Iʼm reminded by this video [Part 2] of Abraham and Gods test of his loyalty. He was ordered to kill his son on Mount Moriah according to Genesis 22: 1-24. Not until he had bound his son Isaac to a sacrificial alter and held the dagger aloft did good oleʼ god step in and say, “Ho, Ho – just joshing old friend”. Or, words to that effect.

The final question is perhaps, how many will be abused, exploited, tormented, mocked, slandered and threatened simply because we are yet to demand the burden of proof be met? But to do so in any serious legislative manner is to lose ones political influence. A direct loss of votes. Religious apologetics – even moderate Christian Kevin Ruddʼs “working families” dash to church each week – is steadily cranking that heavy jagged wheel of global superstition.

And it is our very selves and our species brightest traits that is crushed beneath.

Comments posted online from a relative and a friend of Reeceʼs patients.

Just Jules says: June 5, 2010 at 6:01 am Ahhh there is none so blind as those who can not see .. Dr Reece in my eyes is a discusting (sic) human being .. I am the mother of a child he treated .. He also treated my daughter in law and the mother of my first grand child .. If you want to see what his methods leave you with, go see my daughter in law who for the last 11 years has been in a home for the severely brain damaged .. In is own words to me ” they are just reoffending drug addicts”. He is a wolf in sheeps clothing and should of been stopped before he started

Vicki PS says: July 5, 2010 at 12:02 pm I came across this site looking for help for a friend of my daughterʼs. This young woman has been increasingly unhappy with her treatment under Dr Reece. He is treating her addiction with Suboxone, a subutex/naltrexone combination drug. Her big concern is that this unethical, immoral disgrace to the profession reduces her dosage if she has not been to church! This girl is now in early pregnancy and is scared that she could miscarry if this idiot messes around with her medication to suit his pathological world view. I find it frankly incredible that Dr Reece is still permitted to practice.

Stuart Reece:

The Journal Of Global Drug Policy And Practice

When harm minimization is not harm minimization

Cutting the Gordian knot of drug addiction confusion

Gordon Moyes - “a Christian voice in politics”:

The Great Success Of Naltrexone With Drug Addicts

House Standing Committee on Family and Human Services: Australian Parliament

Inquiry into the impact of illicit drug use on families. Chair: Bronwyn Bishop MP - Liberal Party.

Final Report - The Winnable War on Drugs - Bronwyn Bishop September 13th, 2007. Audio of Bishopʼs launch of The Winnable War

"To the crimes against humanity, it is incumbent upon us as oath takers, advocates of neutrality, professionals and ethicists to note one more. The intentionally malignant anthropomorphism of "science". Science is the vehicle that set us free and we owe our global cousins everything we have gained - indeed as we gain.

To demand that affluent society must now see it as a lumbering, monstrous, "evil" and sentient agent with the single aim of polluting human morale is puerile, ideological, mischievous and markedly in error. We are agents of morality far, far before and because we are agents of evidence."

- Paul Gallagher. August 2009

Herald-Sun and It’s Readers Hit a New Low

2011-04-13T14:38:00.000+10:00

News Ltd. Newspapers like The Daily Telegraph, The Courier Mail and the Adelaide Advertiser are notorious for producing some of the worst journalism in Australia but this week, the Herald-Sun hit a new low.

<p><p><a href="http://video.heraldsun.com.au/1875820254/Melbournes-drug-crisis">VIDEO: Melbourne's drug crisis</a></p></p>

What does a Herald-Sun journalist do when he stumbles across a young overdose victim being cared for by his friends? Chip in and help? Enquire about an ambulance? Pester the friends for a story?

The victim’s friends were in obvious distress but that didn’t stop Herald-Sun journalist, Aaron Langmaid from getting his story. Like some deranged parrot, he repeatedly quizzed the frantic carers if the victim had taken GHB. Five times in five seconds in fact. Eventually, one person snapped back, “I don’t know!”

What’s he actually had? Was it G? What else? What else has he had? Has he had G? How much G did he have?

How long ago did he have it?

When did you last speak to him … Like in the club? How long ago? Like 20 minutes?

How old is he?

And on it went.

Langmaid is a disgrace and sadly, typical of the News Ltd ‘ambulance chaser’ mentality. Langmaid, himself described the situation as ‘frantic’ and that ‘a young life hangs in the balance’ but that didn’t stop him from his selfish pursuit of a story. Were his demanding questions appropriate while a man lie dying in front of his friends? Did he really have to push those attending the victim so hard for an immediate answer? And why didn’t he wait until the ambulance arrived before interfering with a potentially fatal overdose? This was appalling behaviour for a journalist with a major newspaper.

Trash media like the Herald-Sun are experts at this style of dog whistle journalism. Stories about street crime, celebrity meltdowns and welfare cheats attracts a certain type of audience and the Murdoch press really know their market. And like a Mecca for rednecks; racists, bogans and right-wing nutters coming running when there’s a chance to spill some vile on those often deemed as “low-lifes” or “oxygen thieves”.

“Dole bludgers” and “boat people” might be a popular target for most of the Herald-Sun hate squad but the real prize for attracting loonies are drug users and dealers. And nothing highlights this more than the article in question. The reader’s comments section was full of derogative, vile put-downs aimed at the overdose victim and anyone related to drugs. Druggies, as most readers liked to call them were also referred to as ‘idiots’ 27 times. ‘stupid’ 13 times and fools 11 times. Other endearing names include junkies, scum of the earth, the scourge of society, overdosed dogs, drug-addled useless parasites, lowest of the low, indulgent idiots, drop-kicks, excreta, self-inflicted drones, cashed-up tools, brain dead morons, slime balls, ferals[sic] and even buggers.

Drug addicts are the lowest of the low. They don't deserve any more help than they are already getting. If they can't handle their own situation properly then don't expect assistance from anyone else. I can understand that its ruined people's families but this is getting ridiculous. I'm sick of hearing about these kinds of incidents...its their own faults no one elses.

-ausie29

It’s not just the name calling that makes these readers so disgusting but something more sinister. There were literally dozens of comments that proudly called for people overdosing to be left on the street to die.

Just let them OD and die I reckon, less buyers means less demand means less drugs. Simple but effective.

-The Warden of Williamstown

What sort of person thinks like this? What drives someone to make such malicious comments in a public forum about strangers? Have we, as a society really sunken this low?

Here's a thought. Leave the overdosed dogs in the gutters where they fall and concentrate on helping good, honest humans.

-Serge of Melb

The Herald-Sun holds a family day picnic for it’s readers

A big part of it seems to be modern conservative ideology. There were plenty of readers blaming a lack of personal responsibility and a diminishing standard of morals. Fine, they are welcome to their views but spewing out hateful demands for people overdosing to be left to die is bordering on derangement.

One quick way to fix this problem is for Ambo's to fail to respond to overdoses. At what point will the wider community accept that these drug users MAKE A CONSCIOUS DECISION to use drugs. Why should it be up to US (again) to be responsible for the actions of others. Police will NEVER stop the drug problem - it's been around for centuries. On top of that USERS don't get charged by Police anymore - Christine Nixon pitted the little darlings, stating a drug OD was a 'medical' problem & Police were instructed not to charge them with 'using' drugs... Let all that OD die from the OD. Then these idiots might thing twice about using - bonus will be the Ambo's can then have time to attend REAL medical emergencies.

-Fed Up of Berwick

What is it with modern conservatives and their lack of compassion? A recent study from the London Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience found that those with strong conservative views have less grey matter in a part of the brain related to understanding complexity than liberal minded people. The study also concluded that a conservative’s brain is bigger in the section linked to fear.

People living in fear will understandably see more threats everywhere because they are looking for them, and will lash out violently at any provocation while those analyzing the big picture are busy sorting complex details. While slower to retaliate, Liberals are compelled to explore options that might be difficult but necessary.

-Cathy Taibbi: Allvoices

So, conservatives have a unique brain that can’t process complex matters as well as the general population? And they are fearful of what most people deem fixable. I must say that I’m not really surprised at this information considering the reader’s comments from the Herald-Sun article. Conservative ideology is a destructive force and it unnecessarily divides many communities on important social issues. Throw in some self absorbed religious types and you have a dangerous combination.

I cannot have a lot of sympathy, as a person who has had to deal with the squalor and desperation of drug abuse in people I know. Self respect, my faith and my upbringing helped me to never go down that path (or even contemplate it) but the sorts of morals (yes, social engineers, I know it is a dirty word) approved of today are selfish, Left-wing and all about seeming and self-gratification. mental illness is not treated seriously enough, drug pushers are not dealt with harshly enough, and police are wasted on traffic duties and gay-pride marches. The bulk of the citizenry are being conned by a few do-gooders who want to further aid this deadly trade and the people who choose to use the drugs.

-shebs

Apart from the standard anti-drug rhetoric, there is a glaring contradiction in the mentioned article. The underlying message from the Herald-Sun is the need for tougher drug laws and and more public messages like, “mmm … drugs are bad … OK”. There is even a loaded poll under the scary heading, Drug Crisis. It asks readers the leading question, Should there be greater policing and tougher penalties to eliminate drugs on our streets? Of course, over 75% of readers voted yes. But the article included several opinions that contradict the newspaper’s position.

You can't win this war. Part of the reason drugs are so popular is because they are illegal. If illicit substances are regulated you create a space where users know what they are getting. Let’s have a discussion about a national drugs policy.'

-Australian Lawyers Alliance director Greg Barnes

Even champions of Zero Tolerance like the Catholic Church chipped in.

Catholic Care chief executive Fr Joe Caddy said drug use had to be treated as a health issue rather than through the criminal justice system. "In some cases we would still need the authority of the courts but part of the solution is teaching users - and their friends and family - how to manage the situation,'' he said.

-From the Article

And of course, Les Twentyman.

He told heraldsun.com.au that law and order was not going to stop the city's soaring drug problems.

[…]

"At the end of the day we can't stop it. Even when the police announce that they are going to be at rock concerts they still take the drug. The law and order part is certainly not a deterrent," he said.

[…]

Mr Twentyman said European schemes where drugs are tested for revellers before they take them should be considered.

"What they do in Europe is when people come in to buy drugs they test the drugs for them so they know exactly what they're getting."

"Maybe that needs to be looked at here, it's been a success."

-From the Article

If you had accidentally stumbled onto the Herald-Sun article from another country, you may be forgiven for thinking that Australians are nasty, hysterical twats. Just the initial video showing a ruthless, disrespectful reporter should be enough to trigger some serious questions. And then there’s the loaded poll with such a leading question. But it’s the reader’s comments that would leave you with no doubt. For example:

Let these fools die. Death penalty for sellers no matter how big or small. Jail for users.

-JB

And this.

People who take so called "recreational drugs" should not be given any treatment. Let them die. Maybe then the message will get through. Why should they be clogging up our health resources and a bonus would be a drop in crime.

-cazy of everywhere

But there’s always a lighter side to everything.

Apparently, drugs is what it's all about these days. This is what I was told by an inside source. You go to clubs, you do drugs. Just close the clubs down. The fewer places for these dogs to pack in, the better.

-Anthony B of Melbourne

Anthony, thanks to you and your ‘inside source’, for sharing that very important piece of information. Have you informed the Australian Federal Police?

Maybe some readers just have too much time on their hands. Especially in this instance:

Punish all three involved! User first offence, minimum $1k fine, and public humiliation. Publicly name them, and put them in public stocks for 12 hrs a day very wknd for 3 mths, and ban them from drugs & alcohol for 1 yr. Subsequent offences lock them up for min of 3 yrs. in special community service goals, that required manual labour, no concurrent sentencing. Drug dealers, no matter age, should face a minimum 15 years, before eligible for parole, with a maximum of never to be released for third, or subsequent offence. Finally, clubs, organised dance parties, other commercial activities, what ever, a $10k fine for each, and every addict who is, or was found to be on their premises. I say 'was', because the bouncers, rather than move this sick individual to a safe location, put him in a car. The fine should be $250k for each dealer caught, other than those they hand over with suitable proof to Police, and $500k fine if the Police raid, and only find drugs on the floor. Companies running these venues should have to put up a $mill Bond to cover potential fines, and replenish it if used, before being able to do business.

-Yasmine

Some suggest that more education about the consequences of drug use is a possible solution. I agree, we need more education … like basic writing skills.

and while he lies in the gutter with self inflicted wounds,honest people who need an ambulance are waiting,dieing because of his choices,illegal choices.Let a few die,it is their choice to ignor the law and education on drugs.they are just a scourge on decent society

-Eric of Melbourne

Herald-Sun reader Robynne says ...
"Why woulod a government condone drug taking?"

Yes, education might just be the key.

The Gillard goes all out to spend millions on anti smoking advertising,tells us what to drink ,what to eat ,BUT GIVES THE GREEN LIGHT TO ILLICIT DRUGS,SUPPLIES SHOOTING GALLERIES SO ADDICTS DON'T OVER DOSE,gives them free methodone,LIQUID HEROIN,WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE ??WHY WOULOD A GOVERNMENT CONDONE DRUG TAKING ??

-ROBYNNE morton of merrimac

See what happens when you leave school before your 12th birthday. BTW, what is a ‘Gillard’? And I might be wrong but did the reader misspell their own name?

But amongst the riff-raff there was a beacon of hope. This from Molly of Melbourne:

For those who don't know, GHB was originally designed as an anaesthetic, thus, falling unconcious from it isn't an "overdose", it's doing what the drug was designed for. Secondly, it's a naturally occurring substance in the body, it's much healthier to have GHB than most other drugs. There is a big problem in Melbourne with people taking too much and clubs calling ambulances, but there is a much bigger Australia wide drinking problem. Where are the stats about how many people die from GHB? The number is minuscule, and it's usually because the user has combined a bunch of drugs, not because of GHB toxicity. The chance of death from it is about the same as it is for someone who's passed out from alcohol, the main reason for death? Choking on vomit, but they don't like to add that factor in. I'm not saying we should ignore the problem, but don't dramatist it, look after your mates, make sure they're in the recovery position if they do "blow out" and try to educate them when they're awake on safe use. You can't stop people taking drugs, but you can help make it safer.

-Molly of Melbourne

The display of ignorance, aggression and malevolence from some readers was almost bordering on schadenfreude. There were so many comments that were just downright nasty and totally unnecessary as well as many opinions based on nothing but limited, misguided views. I can’t help but ask myself if this is the consensus in Australia or is it just the result of dog whistle journalism. Maybe it’s just pack mentality from a small group of uneducated, arrogant rednecks? I like to think of Australia as a fairly accepting society especially considering we like to portray ourselves as a “fair go” nation. Sadly, I think the self imposed image of barracking for the underdog or being the “fair go” nation is championed mostly by the very readers who made many of the horrible comments. I picture many of them being draped in the Australian flag reminiscent of the Cronulla riots in NSW. Hopefully, this is not the real Australia but a country made up of multiple cultures, strong beliefs in equality and a willingness to listen to reason.

And on a final note, you can’t go past this apt comment with it’s compelling advice.

Just for once, people of Melbourne & Australia, can I implore you, just for once in your lives, to refrain from making comment on issues that you know next-to-nothing about. Plus, just because your cousin, ten of your Facebook friends or your co-worker's former nanny had problems with drugs, it doesn't make you an 'expert' - FACT. So now that we have that established, pls click on the link below and begin the process of developing insight: http://enews.vaada.org.au/news/2011/04/11/media-release-vaada-saving-lives

-Joe

Overdose Footage Sparks New Drugs Debate

Herald-Sun

Aaron Langmaid & Anne Wright

April 2011

HARROWING footage of an overdose victim sprawled on a city footpath in the middle of the day has sparked nationwide debate.

Closing Melbourne's seedy daytime dance clubs and legalising illicit drugs were among suggestions.

Despite campaigning on a plan to clean up Melbourne's streets, Lord Mayor Robert Doyle would not comment on the issue yesterday.

The owner of the nightclub involved said the victim's friends had demanded to be let out of the venue as he lapsed into unconsciousness.

Tramp owner Matt Giles said staff urged the group to wait for an ambulance but they were told to carry him on to the street.

"We didn't want to let him go,'' he said.

"We told them 'you're not taking him home'.

"But they demanded to be let out.''

The 20-year-old had been conscious while inside. It was the first GHB-related case he had seen at the venue in five years.

"We judge it case by case but it's tough for us,'' he said.

Australian Lawyers Alliance director Greg Barnes said it was time to discuss a federal policy of decriminalisation.

"You can't win this war,'' Mr Barnes said.

"Part of the reason drugs are so popular is because they are illegal. If illicit substances are regulated you create a space where users know what they are getting,'' he said.

"Let's have a discussion about a national drugs policy.''

Catholic Care chief executive Fr Joe Caddy said drug use had to be treated as a health issue rather than through the criminal justice system.

"In some cases we would still need the authority of the courts but part of the solution is teaching users - and their friends and family - how to manage the situation,'' he said.

The footage captured by the Herald Sun also attracted a huge response from readers.

"The fact the (victim) was at a 'night' club at 11 in the morning says it all,'' said Lance, of Melbourne.

"Having these places open until this time promotes the use of drugs. How else can someone last the distance without drugs. Open them earlier and close them at 3am.''

In graphic scenes, a 20-year-old man is hauled from a nightclub at 11am on Sunday as families stroll past seemingly unaware a young life hangs in the balance.

The video showing paramedics battling to revive him highlights the drugs epidemic, with 9000 overdoses a year putting enormous strain on emergency services.

Premier Ted Baillieu, who viewed the Herald Sun video, said the anti-drugs message was not getting through to young people.

"This is a parent's worst nightmare," Mr Baillieu said. "It is shocking footage, it's real, it's evil."

Friends of the victim are clearly frantic after bouncers carry him unconscious from Tramp bar on King St.

The Herald Sun witnessed staff waiting with the man inside the venue door for more than 10 minutes before he was carried across the footpath and into a waiting car.

He remained unconscious until paramedics arrived but his friends confirmed he had taken the liquid drug gammahydroxybutrate, or GHB.

"I don't know how much he's taken or when he took it," one cried.

An Ambulance Victoria spokesman later confirmed an advance life support team - and even a fire brigade unit - had been called to treat the suspected overdose victim.

Youth worker Les Twentyman said Melbourne's drug problem has been on the rise for some time, and needed to be addressed.

He told heraldsun.com.au that law and order was not going to stop the city's soaring drug problems.

"The ambos told me recently that they had noticed they were attending more of these types of incidents," he said.

"The scene is just awash with drugs."

Mr Twentyman said the party drug scene appeared to affect middle class youngsters the most because they could afford to be in the clubs and buying drugs.

"They'll just shop around and one day it's heroin, another day it's amphetamines or whatever pills they can get their hands on.

"The issue is that they have a whole cocktail of different drugs."

Mr Twentyman said European schemes where drugs are tested for revellers before they take them should be considered.

"What they do in Europe is when people come in to buy drugs they test the drugs for them so they know exactly what they're getting."

"Maybe that needs to be looked at here, it's been a success."

Intensive care paramedic Alan Eade said it was a scene with which officers were all too familiar.

"We have the highest rate of use of GHB of any city in Australia," Mr Eade said.

"In other states and territories usage has dropped, but not here. Melburnians are overwhelmingly stupid.

"The greatest education point is this: it's a dangerous drug and people die using it.

"If it goes wrong, it goes wrong to the tune of not breathing," Mr Eade said.

But he said the youths involved in Sunday's incident had done the right thing: "They got help. Some others probably wouldn't have."

Mr Baillieu said the message wasn't getting through.

"It's turning young people's lives upside down. It's wasting lives, turning kids into vegetables in hospitals - it's madness."

Nightclub Owners' Association spokesman David Button said the use of GHB in clubs was prevalent.

The victim was taken to the Royal Melbourne hospital and later discharged.

A Victoria Police spokeswoman said the Force was committed to reducing the supply of illicit drugs in the community.

"(This includes) the use of so called 'party drugs' in nightclubs," she said in a statement.

"If information is received regarding trafficking at licensed premises or within the community, Victoria Police responds accordingly.

"The Drug Task Force and Regional police members continue to conduct a number of successful operations aimed at reducing the manufacture and supply of illicit drugs."

Related Articles

GBH, Ecstasy, Overdoses and Raves - Australian Style

Journalist Should Be Ashamed

Piers Akerman, His Readers, Oxycodone and The Truth

Did They Really Say That? Part 1 - The Media

Will The Daily Telegraph Writer Who Wrote This Crap Please Own Up

Drug Reporting in the MSM - They Just Get Sillier and Sillier

Has Paul Sheehan Written the Worst Article Ever?

Drug Dealers Have to Live Somewhere

News Ltd Hypocrisy & The Culture of Nasty, Aggressive, Unethical Media

Only in the Trash Media

Bogan Schapelle Haters Love The Hillbilly Press

CourierMail - Cocaine Hysteria Thrives in Trash Media

WARNING! - Drug Users Being Responsible ... Again!

DIARY: Sick Comments, Dalrymple and Faith

Journalist's Shame

Dairy: Waiting for Your Drug Dealer

2011-04-10T08:04:00.002+10:00

When you are hanging out or wanting to score, nothing bothers a drug user more than waiting. Most readers here have probably scored at sometime in their lives so you probably know what I’m talking about. But when you’re an addict and the drug involved is heroin, the stakes are raised by at least ten fold. The combination of anticipation and withdrawal creates an uneasy mix that most addicts would encounter on a regular basis. And the question that crosses everyone’s mind when waiting to score is why the fuck is my dealer late ... again! Surely a heroin dealer - who is most likely addicted as well - knows how much angst is caused by waiting for drugs. They too had to score like the rest of us at one stage and know what’s involved. So why are drug dealers always late?

Low level dealers also have to score except now they wait for a bigger dealer. This must keep them familiar with the concept of waiting. But for some reason - one which I have never been able to establish - they are always late. They all do it but unfortunately, my dealer is the worst. Let me give you some examples.

My dealer’s name is Tan. A decent chap who I have known for over ten years. He is mostly fair with the size of his deals and will even provide credit if he can. But he has a problem ... a major problem. Tan has no concept of time. I’m not talking about the “sorry. I’m late ... the traffic!” excuse. Nor am I not talking about your grandfather who might sometimes mutter, “jeepers, is it that time already?”. No, this is unpredictable, inconceivable, unbelievable and totally unnecessary bad time mismanagement.

A few months back I rang Tan around midday and asked to see him. I was told that he had to go to the city to refresh his supplies and his estimated return was going to be “an hour or so”. This is where the alarm bells should have gone off.

Tan’s not a big dealer and services a small but steady customer base. It’s more of an informal arrangement than a business and most of his ‘clients' have know him for years. But one thing we as clients have all learned is to never rely on him to be on time.

Normally on a week day, a trip to the city takes 40-45 minutes with peak hour adding about 30 minutes to the trip. With the added time for conducting his business, there was no way he was getting back within “an hour or so”. But this is where a little known scientific fact kicks in. Waiting for drugs can alter the time-space continuum. That’s right; many years of statistical research and scientific analysis has shown that the calculated period for drugs to arrive is distorted by the degree of hanging out. It’s calculated like this: 15 minutes before Tan leaves plus 45 minutes to the city plus 30 minutes to make the transaction plus 45 minutes to return home plus 15 minutes for me to get to Tan’s house equals - “an hour or so”.

The junkie waiting equation (aka “an hour or so”):

15 + (45 x 2) + 30 = 60

As usual, the wait was excruciating. And in case you weren’t aware, every drug minute takes three normal non-drug minutes(another little known scientific fact). Anyway, it was finally “an hour or so” since I first rang Tan so I called to see if he was ready.

Terry: “Can I come over now?”

Tan: “Soon ... we are just about to leave”

WTF!!! He hadn’t even left yet! Remember, I had rang him at midday and he was supposed to back by now. I can’t remember the exact words I used after I hung up but they weren’t family orientated. That I know for sure. My day was not off to a good start.

Eventually, it hit 2:00pm but I decided to give it an extra 10 minutes. It had been two whole hours since I had first rang so he was due back any moment and giving it an extra 10 minutes should accommodate any unforeseen delays. Somehow though, I knew in the back of my mind that it was not enough so I bravely waited another 5 minutes. Then another 5. Finally I gave in at 2:30pm. Two and half hours after the initial call should surely be enough time.

Terry: “Can I come over now?”

Tan: “Soon, we’re on the way”

Terry: “on the way back?”

Tan: “No, just on the way”

You must be starting to understand why I hate Tan so much. How hard is it to drive somewhere and come back again within an agreed timeframe?

Why is this happening today? I had skipped my scheduled meds for this and was now starting to suffer withdrawals. I was in pain and Tan’s simple task of driving to the city and back was the key to stopping it.

By 3:30pm I was sure my time had come. After all, I had rang at midday and the estimated “hour or so” was now 3 and a half hours. Tan couldn’t possibly be that useless.

Just to add some background to the story. I had originally told Tan that my partner needed the car at 3:00pm. I asked him specifically if he was going to be back before then because I couldn’t come over after 3:00pm. Of course, Tan had assured me he would be “an hour or so”. Again at 2:30pm I told him about the urgency of the situation but he assured me he wouldn’t be long.

It’s now 3:30 and Mrs Wright is going apeshit on the phone for not having the car. I tossed up whether to ring Tan or just head on over to his house. Surely he was back by now - it was over 3 and a half hours since I first called.

From years of experience I had learnt a few rules that helped to keep me sane. First of all, always double the expected time. Ten minutes is at least 20 minutes and half an hour means an hour or more. Secondly, never ask Tan to hurry if I have a set timeframe. He just doesn’t have the ability to grasp deadlines.

3:30pm

Terry: “Can I come over now?”

Tan: “Soon”

Terry: “Where are you?”

Tan: “I have just arrived to pick up. I’ll be back home in an hour or so”

Arrrgghhhhh!!! #@$##%$%

I finally caught up with Tan at 5:30pm. Five and half hours after the first call. The longest “an hour or so” in history.

This was just one example of how useless my drug dealer is. The last time I scored I told him I had only 30 minutes to get to his house, have a fix and get home. Again, my partner needed the car for work. “Yup, come on over“ Tan said. I leapt into the car, stopped at a ATM for cash and got to Tan’s house within 15 minutes. I knocked on his door and waited impatiently. Five minutes goes extremely slow when you have 15 minutes to fix then get home before your partner murders you. What the hell is he doing? I knocked again, yelling out that I’m in a goddamn hurry. Finally, Tan appears and says that he will be back shortly ... he has to go and get it first.

Then there’s the time that I wanted to use without Mrs Wright knowing. She had gone out for an hour so I rang and asked if Tan could come over straight away. “Yup, I’ll be over in 10 minutes”, he said. I emphasised that I had less than an hour and if he turned up after that, the deal was off. I asked him to tell me now if he couldn’t make it and I would see him later instead. He assured me he would be there in time.

30 minutes later and no Tan. Feeling slightly panicky, I rang to see how far away he was. He told me he was just about to leave. I waited for 15 more minutes and knew that this was my last hope before Mrs Wright appeared. So I rang Tan again and said Mrs Wright was due home in less than 15 minutes. He then explains, “I can’t come over. I don’t have a car at the moment”. Seriously … what do you say to that?

I have searched the pages of many medical journals on the internet looking for a time disorder that affects drug dealers. There doesn’t seem to be one. So what the hell does Tan have? What could make someone so oblivious to the concept of time? Apparently though, there are many drug dealers who suffer this infliction. Considering the carnage caused by this terrible disorder, I am seriously thinking about starting a charitable foundation for them. Does anyone want to recommend a name for the foundation because I have a few suggestions.

Even the Truth About Drugs are Illegal

2011-04-03T15:22:00.000+10:00

The more I read about this story, the more bizarre it becomes. Seriously, how clueless are these simpleminded people?

Shelby Considers Drug Charges Against Lisa Ling, Crew

Bucyrus Telegraph Forum

Jami Kinton

March 2011

SHELBY -- Local authorities are considering charges after a recent Oprah Winfrey Network broadcast displayed extensive drug use in and around Richland County.

The Shelby Police Department filed a general offense report Monday morning, with offenses including "corrupting another with drugs," "drug abuse" and "child endangerment."

The offenders?

National news correspondent Lisa Ling, the production crew and all subjects involved in a recent episode of "Our America."

The report, along with a recommendation for misdemeanor and felony charges, will be presented to the Richland County Prosecutor's Office today.

For months, Ling and her crew filmed in Mansfield, Shelby, Plymouth and beyond to detail the heroin problem in Richland County.

When the episode aired on TV on March 22, Shelby police Chief Charlie Roub said he was shocked by what he saw.

"There were people using drugs, talking about using drugs and in one scene, you've got people using drugs with a 1-year-old present," Roub said. "The 1-year-old was also in the back of a van with his parents on their way to purchase drugs."

Spokespeople from the Oprah Winfrey Network have not responded to requests for comment from the News Journal.

"Sometimes it's hard to tell where the drugs are being used at, like when the subjects are in the van, but some places are easily identified as Richland County," Roub said. "Even if you start to commit a crime here and you end in another location, you can still say it started here."

The show, according to the chief, depicts several people injecting themselves and others with drugs. Some were minors at the time, he said.

"What happens from here will be up to the prosecutor to determine, but even if a counterfeit drug was offered, that's a crime, too," Roub said. "If you present it as a drug, it's a drug."

One family involved still lives in the Shelby area.

"I know these people," Roub said. "I've known them for a long time. I just didn't appreciate the whole thing. The show gives this area a bad name. You pick on an area like Richland County, and it makes us look like we're the worst there is in the country.

"Simply not true.”

Hiding the Truth About Drugs Won’t Make Them Go Away

At first, I thought the article was a satire on how midwest America over reacts to drug related issues and it took a few minutes before it sunk in. Then I realised that some elected whackjobs were actually contemplating whether to lay charges on a film crew for reporting on the local drug problem. And these are not just simple misdemeanours but full-on felony charges. Accusing the film crew of “corrupting another with drugs”, "drug abuse" and "child endangerment" is not for the light hearted. This is serious stuff.

It seems that if you expose the uncomfortable truth about illicit drugs, the authorities become obsessed with proving that this information is dangerous to the public. Any diversion from the usual government’s tough line on drugs leaves authorities vulnerable to those pesky facts whipped up by researchers and truth seeking journalists. This sends our leaders into a spin as they go scurrying for their rule books on drug policy and protocol. Never mind that the drug policies they so fervently support are at the root of the problem. Never mind that the laws they insist on cause more carnage, death and misery than drugs ever will. Do they realise that drug policy has been the biggest government failure in history? Why are they so scared of the truth?

Remember Professor David Nutt, head of the UK government’s The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD)? He was sacked by the Home Secretary for simply providing facts to the public. Prof. Nutt made worldwide headlines when he stated that ecstasy and cannabis were not as harmful as the authorities claimed and should be reclassified along with an overhaul of the countries’ drug scheduling system. His comments incensed the government, horrified the anti-drug nut-jobs and sent the tabloid press into a frenzy. The dilemma though was that the Professor was right. And although he may have had scientific research and evidence on his side, government policy isn’t always about the facts. Especially when it comes to drug policy. His offence was described by the Home Secretary as creating “confusion between scientific advice and policy” which says a lot about how the government implements those policies. If important government policies are not based on facts, evidence and science then what the hell are they based on?

How can Shelby Police justify filing charges for airing a documentary? The reporters and film crew were just showing the world how some people live. Documenting the harsh reality of drug abuse on public TV isn’t creating the situation but merely exposing a major problem. Whether the subjects were committing a crime or not, it would have occurred regardless of a TV crew being present.

There were people using drugs, talking about using drugs and in one scene, you've got people using drugs with a 1-year-old present. The 1-year-old was also in the back of a van with his parents on their way to purchase drugs.

--A shocked Shelby Police Chief, Charlie Roub

That poor 1-year old, being confronted with drug use and van rides at his age. And how dare those ruthless addicts talk about drugs let alone using them. Really? Is this the level of behaviour we expect from an elected Police Chief? There were no violent crimes committed or dangerous behaviour that harmed the community. The footage was simply of people inflicted with an addiction which by-the-way, is still technically a medial issue. And Charlie Roub is not winning any awards for rational thinking by comparing addicts who are using drugs to dangerous criminals like bank robbers.

Let me give you an example. If camera crews followed around bank robbers and aired it on national television, would you not use that footage as evidence? If we did nothing, people would ask, 'Well why didn't you do anything?

--Shelby Police Chief, Charlie Roub

The actions of the Shelby Police Chief, wreaks of an elected official trying to cover his own arse. Why is it alright for Roub to appear on TV in front of confiscated contraband whilst sprucing the successes of his dedicated officers but it’s not okay to show the associated problems? His outrage just doesn’t pass the logic test.

I know these people. I’ve known them for a long time. I just didn't appreciate the whole thing. The show gives this area a bad name. You pick on an area like Richland County, and it makes us look like we're the worst there is in the country.

--Shelby Police Chief, Charlie Roub

METRICH

It’s interesting to note or even ironic, that the Shelby Police Department is part of METRICH. They are a drug fighting collective, originally formed in 1986 to service Richland County but have since grown to include several nearby jurisdictions. To get an idea how an METRICH operates - the organisation that dictates Shelby’s anti-drug strategies - I checked out their website only to discover that the last update was in 2007. Hmm. Digging deeper, I noticed that the News section has an amazing collection of two articles! One from 2005 and the other from 2004. I suggest you read the 2004 article, 14 Arrested On Drug Charges At Ripplefest. Another interesting feature is the section called “What Drugs Look Like”. But I hope they don’t use this for new officers doing field work because the page is blank.

Best of all though, is their incredible dictionary of drug terms. I have to say that every possible combination of street slang for drugs is included. Did you know that “Pot” is street talk for marijuana? Or “Agonies” means withdrawal symptoms and when you’re “Totally Spent”, you have a MDMA hangover. Oh, and “Garbage” is what they call inferior quality drugs. My personal favourite is, Zoinked - intoxicated on drugs to the point of uselessness.

More obscure terms include:

Chestbonz - the one who takes the biggest bong hit

The Witch - heroin

Tampon - a fat joint

Zig Zag Man - LSD; marijuana; marijuana rolling papers

Galloping Horse - heroin

Ghost Busting - smoking cocaine; searching for white particles in the belief that they are crack

Go into a Sewer - to inject a drug

Balling - vaginally implanted cocaine

Interplanetary Mission - travel from one crackhouse to another in search of crack

Queen Ann's Lace - marijuana

Up Against The Stem - addicted to smoking marijuana

And in case you didn’t already know, there’s the term, “Thing” - heroin; cocaine; main drug interest at the moment. I imagine it would be used in a sentence like this: “Where’s my thing” or “Bring that thing over here” or “Is this thing for me?”. I’m glad they cleared that one up.

Growing Concerns

Since the news broke about the Shelby Police Department filing charges, two nearby counties, the Shelby Mayor and some community leaders have publicly given their support. This is a worry. Not only do they have some redneck Police Chief living in his own delusional world but there’s a queue forming of equally disturbed people, willing to join him. Incredibly, most of them hold positions of power.

Filing these charges raises some interesting issues. Does this mean that documentary makers filming the horrors of war can be charged for showing crimes against humanity? Is the Shelby Police Chief simply embarrassed because civilians can find people using heroin but his officers can’t? Does the documentary show the community to have a bigger drug problem than the Police Chief likes to admit?

If there’s one truth to be learnt from all this, it’s that only the "War on Drugs" could produce a scenario like this.

Charges Against TV Crew Garner Support In Shelby

Bucyrus Telegraph Forum

Jami Kinton

March 2011

SHELBY -- A pending decision to charge local residents and crew members who took part in a recent episode of "Our America" has won the support of local officials.

On Monday, the Shelby Police Department filed a general offense report -- the initial police document generated upon a complaint -- that included the offenses of "corrupting another with drugs," "drug abuse" and "child endangerment."

Shelby Police Chief Charlie Roub said he would be also be looking into filing charges against national news correspondent Lisa Ling, the production crew and others involved in the episode that aired March 22 on the Oprah Winfrey Network.

A media representative from the network declined to comment on a possible lawsuit.

The recent hour-long program was a sequel to a show that aired on "Oprah" in 2008.

The Shelby police report his been forwarded to the Richland County Prosecutor's office.

Assistant Richland County Prosecutor Brent Robinson has not returned calls to the media.

Local resident included in the episode -- from Plymouth, Shelby and Mansfield -- were seen allegedly injecting themselves with heroin, sometimes in the presence of a toddler.

Richland County Children Services is aware of the situation.

Plymouth Police Chief Charlie Doan said he, too, was angered by the footage. Doan said his department was actively involved in the taping of the initial episode, allowing the crew to shoot at the Plymouth department and assigning officers to tag along on taping that took place inside the village.

When the first episode aired showing Plymouth residents consuming drugs, Doan said he was livid.

"I was on the phone that same night with the network," he said. "I was hot. They never filmed that stuff when we were around. When I called them they basically said, 'We were trying to shoot a show.' I do think that the crew should still be held accountable, but that's where the prosecutor comes in."

Doan said he had many questions after viewing the footage.

"Anyone who supplies drugs should be charged, but it's a matter of proving who did what," he said. "They show (a woman) shooting up, but there's a lot we didn't see. Where do you think that money came from? I doubt they stole it with the presence of the TV crew there. Hopefully, the crew didn't watch them steal it, too."

Although two of the people on the show live in Plymouth, Doan said it didn't appear any criminal activity took place within his jurisdiction.

"If it did, I would pursue charges, too," Doan said. "If (Roub) can get something from this, he won't lack support from me."

Richland County Sheriff Steve Sheldon said he spoke with Roub on Tuesday morning about the issue. Sheldon said he couldn't speculate on whether or not the county would decide to join forces.

"Two hundred things could happen from here," he said. "We're waiting to see what the prosecutor says."

In response to some angry community members, Roub stressed that Shelby Police are not pursuing a lawsuit.

"It's a criminal act, not a civil act," he said. "There is evidence that a crime was committed, but a lot can happen from here."

Roub said the time criminal actions took place also will be considered.

As police chief, Roub said he has an obligation to address the situation.

"Let me give you an example," Roub said. "If camera crews followed around bank robbers and aired it on national television, would you not use that footage as evidence? If we did nothing, people would ask, 'Well why didn't you do anything?'"

Shelby Mayor Marilyn John found no fault in Roub's efforts.

"If illegal activity has taken place anywhere in the county, it is up to law enforcement to pursue it," she said. "If it happened during the filming, then it's up to them to investigate it and address it."

Doan is exasperated.

"I was sick after the first show, and didn't even watch all of the second," he said. "It seemed like it was done more for entertainment than anything else. It just didn't end up being what I imagined.”

Related Articles

Charges Against TV Crew Garner Support In Shelby

Oprah Network Checks In On Richland County Drug Users

Shelby Officials Back Drug Probe After 'Our America' Episode

Shelby Family Disgruntled By Local Reaction To Oprah Network Show

Soft on Drugs? ... Soft in the Head!

2011-03-24T15:04:00.000+11:00

Darren “Maaaate” Marton

Today, in the The Daily Telegraph, Darren Marton wrote.

I AM not an expert in the drug and alcohol field. I am a layman who has learned his lessons through life experience.

And he is dead right. He is not an expert on drugs and forms his views from empirical data (his own experience). Certainly not worthy of consideration for a national or state drug policy.

But it’s more than that. Like most anti-harm minimisation zealots, Marton’s use of the truth, is dubious at best. It’s this willingness to lie along with a mix of fanaticism - in opposition to harm minimisation - that makes people like Darren Marton so dangerous.

Marton’s recent piece in The Daily Telegraph(below) is a prime example of how anti-drug rhetoric from politicians can be misconstrued as some wise, righteous advice that can only benefit the community. But lying about the facts is not helping anyone, especially the families of drug users who have suffered the consequences from decades of propaganda. Marton’s message is just an extension of that propaganda, hurting the very people he is supposed to care so much about.

Claiming we have never had a "War on Drugs" is an insult to the millions of people incarcerated around the globe who have done nothing wrong but suffer an addiction. Imagine how do African-Americans and Latinos in the US feel when someone denies that they are victims of a largely racist policy? Although African-Americans make up 12.2 percent of the population and 13% of regular drug users in the US, they account for 74% of all Americans sent to prison for drug possession crimes. In other words, African-Americans were sent to state prisons for drug offences 13 times more often than other races. It’s a similar story for Latinos. How can Darren Marton possibly defend a Zero Tolerance policy when it causes results like this? Look at the crack-cocaine disparity laws in the US. During his reign as US President, Ronald Reagan - whose strategies form the basis for Marton’s suggestions e.g. “Just Say No” campaign, tough drug laws etc. - increased penalties for crack possession, 100 times that of powder cocaine. Of course, crack is widely used in poorer suburbs largely populated with minorities like African-Americans and Latinos whilst cocaine powder was then exclusively for the richer, white middle-upper classes. This is the reality of Marton’s suggestions. The fact is, simple slogan campaigns like “Just Say No” or his own “No Way” don’t work and never have. They might appease nervous parents or posturing politicians but history and research have ruled them out as ineffective.

Australia minorities are not exempt from the harsh reality of the "War on Drugs" either. Tough drug laws inflict much more damage to poorer families than the middle-upper class. For example, most drug dealers are addicts on low incomes who fund their addiction by selling to other addicts and friends. This “crime” is non violent and between consenting adults yet it is the focus of a Zero Tolerance policy championed by those who are far removed from this world. At the other end of the scale are the largely hidden, middle-upper class addicts who often have the means to fund their addiction albeit, only for a while. They often can afford clever solicitors, have family support and let’s face it, scrub up better in a court room.

Denying we have ever had a "War on Drugs" is disingenuous and to suggest that we are somehow too liberal with our drug policy is wrong. What Marton fails to tell us is that our official policy of Harm Minimisation has never been properly implemented. Anti-drug zealots love to rattle on about harm reduction programs like needle exchanges, methadone etc. but it is only one pillar of the Harm Minimisation policy. The other two pillars are Supply Reduction(law enforcement) and Demand Reduction(education). If you believe people like Marton, harm minimisation is all about an easy ride for users and taking away resources for prevention and law enforcement. But Harm Reduction only receives 3% of the drug budget whilst law enforcement(Supply Reduction) gets a whopping 56%. Education(Demand Reduction) gets 23% while treatment gets a measly 17%.

In other words, your taxes mop up the mess. It is a social experiment policy, and a reactive one at that.

Those who oppose Harm Minimisation universally favour Zero Tolerance. What they fail to explain though, is that most drug policies in reality are based on Zero Tolerance with smatterings of Harm Minimisation programs. Not exactly the “social experiment policy” that Marton claims.

I ask the question: What kind of future do we want to leave our children and our grandchildren? If it's one that protects our young, strengthens families, and provides safer communities, then let's do it.

Apart from being poorly written, Marton’s piece is pure hyperbole. Exaggerated sound bites, warnings of a doomed future and conspiracy theories tossed together in a disjointed, mess of ideas. But this is the level of competence expected from crusaders like Darren Marton. A far cry from carefully researched studies by qualified experts with decades of experience. I can’t help but think of that famous quote from The Simpsons - Won’t someone please think of the children! And maybe we should. In the US, African-American children were nearly nine times more likely to have a parent incarcerated than white children and Latino children were three times more likely to have a parent incarcerated than white children. Another success for Marton’s Zero Tolerance strategy.

The former NSW Director of Public Prosecutions, Nicholas Cowdery QC, called at The Daily Telegraph's People's Parliament debate for the decriminalisation of some drug offences. This is outrageous.

In his article, Marton also mentions “The Daily Telegraph's People's Parliament debate for the decriminalisation of some drug offences” and how “outrageous” it is that former NSW Director of Public Prosecutions, Nicholas Cowdery QC wants a change to our drug laws. Maybe if Marton looked a bit closer he would have noticed that yesterday, several Liberal Party members attended a presentation in Parliament House by former ACT Supreme Court Judge Ken Crispin who warned us about the problems with our current approach to tackling drug crime. Dr Crispin said that the majority of Australians in jail were there because of drugs or mental illness and most would reoffend because they had not received proper treatment. He added that despite the billions spent on combating drugs, the price of heroin and cocaine had dropped but supply had steadily increased. The Libs who attended, fully support the idea of drug law reform and praised the ex judge’s suggestions. Surely a blow for Marton who relies so heavily on the anti-drug rhetoric of political parties, especially the Libs.

In summary, Darren Marton’s baseless article should concern all of us. With no support from professionals and experts, Marton and co. are left with the only option available ... to play on public ignorance and emotions. If Darren Marton actually spent some time researching the topic of drug policy and the effect on society he might come to a different conclusion. Instead, like so many other anti-drug crusaders, he keeps reiterating the same old, debunked suggestions that are rejected by most professionals in the AOD industry, researchers, scientists, welfare workers, doctors, economists and drug experts. And as history has shown, these suggestions when put into practice are not only dangerous but cause far more damage than drugs ever will.

Soft On Drugs? Simply Say No

The Daily Telegraph

Darren Marton

March 2011

I AM not an expert in the drug and alcohol field. I am a layman who has learned his lessons through life experience.

It is of serious concern to me that proponents of harm minimisation favour the legalisation for personal use of some prohibited drugs.

The former NSW Director of Public Prosecutions, Nicholas Cowdery QC, called at The Daily Telegraph's People's Parliament debate for the decriminalisation of some drug offences. This is outrageous.

For a number of years now it has been claimed that we have lost the war on drugs.

But we have never had a war on drugs. For some, moving to a second phase of harm-minimisation - legalisation - was always the final objective.

But I don't believe Australians are the type of people to wave the white flag.

The NSW drug and alcohol budget in 2009/10 was $140 million. In addition to the services that funding provides, the NSW Government also provides funding for treatment services.

In other words, your taxes mop up the mess. It is a social experiment policy, and a reactive one at that.

Kids as young as 11 have been calling for better drug education with the nation's largest youth survey revealing they feel "ill equipped" to deal with drugs.

When are we going to start listening to the most vulnerable people in the community?

It is far easier to build a young boy or girl than to repair a man or woman.

So it is imperative that we protect our most vulnerable with a focus or prevention and early intervention.

I ask the question: What kind of future do we want to leave our children and our grandchildren?

If it's one that protects our young, strengthens families, and provides safer communities, then let's do it.

Darren Marton is Director of The No-Way Campaign

Related Articles

Liberals Urge Soft Line On Drugs

Race and the Drug War

The Drug War Is In Part Responsible For So Much Economic Disparity And Suffering Of The Black Population In The U.S.

New Report Details Racially Disparate Impact of Facially Neutral Criminal-Justice Policies

Darren Marton - No Way!

Bucket Head of the Year Awards - 2009

Bucket Head of the Year Awards - 2010

Drug Hysteria & The Great Doctor Witch Hunt

2011-03-18T15:06:00.000+11:00

DOCTORS are writing thousands of suspect prescriptions for a pharmaceutical variation of heroin, much of it destined for the black market, forcing the federal government to investigate the actions of 50 medical practitioners.

--Legal 'Heroin' Sold To Addicts (Sydney Morning Herald)

The headline says, ‘Legal Heroin’. Seriously … Who writes this crap? OxyContin and MS-Contin are NOT a ‘pharmaceutical variation of heroin’. Heroin is a pharmaceutical variation of morphine. MS-Contin is just slow release morphine and OxyContin is similar except the active ingredient is oxycondone - a synthetic variation of morphine.

Drug Hysteria

It is this type of trash journalism that helps fuel the drug hysteria that we have become so accustom to. With help from the media, we have managed to demonise drugs to the point where the mere mention of heroin or amphetamines fills our head with images of needle littered alleyways infested with strung out junkies. We may not realise it but virtually no one alive today has experienced life without drug prohibition or the constant drum of anti-drug campaigns. Is it any wonder that so many people fear drugs without knowing the facts?

Since the 1970s, we have been bombarded with anti-drug propaganda courtesy of Richard Nixon’s “War on Drugs”. Not since the era of Reefer Madness and the Temperance movement had we seen such government vigour to demonise drugs. The US government’s commitment was so intense that it used all of it’s might to install their anti-drug policy on the whole world. And just when we thought it couldn’t get any worse, along came Ronald Reagan. Any hope of rationality entering the drug debate was gone along with evidence based policy, human rights and logic. Reagan’s reign of terror introduced such doozies as mandatory sentencing, three strikes and you’re out, the crack-cocaine disparity laws and the “Just Say No” mindset. Damning drug users was now a permanent weapon for ambitious politicians, playing on the fear of parents and a gullible public. Conservatives, moralisers and the media went along for the ride. The US’s "War on Drugs" was now a global fight.

They say that the first victim of war is the truth. And the "War on Drugs" is no exception. When it comes to drugs, no claim is too outrageous and no strategy is off limits. Politicians and anti-drug groups are free to make any claim they want, regardless of the truth or reality. Drugs are now used as a tool to further someone’s career or push a certain ideology but the underlying message is fear. Luckily we now have the internet and a growing population who have used drugs recreationally and survived. The empty rhetoric from politicians - who openly admit to previous drug use but warn off others not to repeat their so called mistakes - is increasingly falling on deaf ears. Despite the predictions over the last 100 years of impending doom where drugged out zombies roam the streets or our hospitals are over flowing with dope smoking, paranoid schizophrenics, life goes on and the sky remains firmly in place. But the real issue that underpins the perceived drug problem is the specious strategies championed by the very people who keep making these dire predictions.

The Great Doctor Witch Hunt

My doctor has been telling me this for years - GPs are terrified of being targeted for over-prescribing opioids or benzos. He also told me that many GPs will under-prescribed much needed medications or not at all. They don’t feel good about it but sadly, fear is now a stronger incentive than best medical practice. My doctor is a pragmatic man and tells it like it is. he explains that moralisers, politicians and conservatives despise the misuse of drugs and if a few innocent doctors are wrongly charged, well it’s a small price to pay to catch those who feed the rabid junkie scourge.

Human Services Minister Tanya Plibersek warned that doctors caught doing the wrong thing would be ``put on notice'' and face possible sanctions. The Professional Services Review could be called in, while serious fraud cases will be referred to the commonwealth director of public prosecutions, she said.

--CourierMail (March 2011)

This is a regular topic I discuss with my doctor and he is as adamant as myself that the "War on Drugs" causes far more problems than it fixes. It’s probably ironic that during our conversation, he pauses to phone the health department to get an authorisation for my monthly script. A script that provides me with enough daily morphine to kill over 10 healthy adults. I always wonder while he attends his phone call if he is afraid of being targeted like the GPs he mentioned to me. If he is afraid, he has never shown it.

As part of a Medicare crackdown, 50 doctors across Australia have come under scrutiny for prescribing unusually high levels of drugs to patients aged under 50 who are less likely to need pain management medication.

--The West Australian: GPs Under Scrutiny For Misuse Of Painkillers

When I hear about ‘prescribing unusually high levels of drugs’ I often wonder what doses are they talking about. How much is too high? As I previously mentioned, my daily requirements are huge compared to someone on 3 x 10mg tablets per day. But some pain sufferers take triple of what I am prescribed and methadone patients are often given twice my equivalent dose. It seems logical that some patients receive high doses to meet their medical needs whilst others suffice with a lower dose. My question is, how do bureaucrats determine the maximum level any one person needs to reduce pain?

I recently wrote about a situation in South Australia where DASSA (Drugs of Dependence Unit within Drug and Alcohol Services SA) have taken over the task of dealing with pain sufferers. DASSA’s main clientele are drug addicts and therefore lack the expertise to deal with pain patients who require large doses of pain medication. In typical bureaucratic style, DASSA has set upper limits on opioid dosages so that those who once had sufficient coverage for their pain issues now have to reduce their medication. Can we even imagine how much stress and suffering that causes those who are in chronic pain? Many of them can’t even get out of bed let alone attend a drug addiction centre like Waranilla at Norwood. While anyone else with a medical condition can see the doctor of their choice, those who need specialised pain management, must line up with methadone patients at drug addiction centres.

Since the policy has changed many sufferers are now unable to work, care for themselves and their families, and are in constant pain. Things were working perfectly well before the policy change was made for no apparent reason

--George Seabrook: Dignity For Chronic Pain Sufferers

Tanya Plibersek

Bungled policies like the South Australian situation are a result of drug hysteria, political posturing and ignorance. But at what point does ignorance stop being an excuse for elected leaders who are paid to implement policies in the best interest of the community? And what about when a politician is not ignorant but still willing to rattle on with the usual “Tough on Drugs" rhetoric.

The misuse of prescription narcotics is a growing problem that destroys lives and tears communities apart

--Tanya Plibersek

Human Services and Social Inclusion Minister, Tanya Plibersek has a good reason not to succumb to political pressure and repeating the standard government line on drugs. Her husband was once a drug addict and spent nearly three years in prison for a heroin distribution charge. If anyone should understand the futility of prohibition and tough law enforcement on drug addicts then Tanya Plibersek is it.

You have to wonder if threatening doctors is really a sensible thing to do ... especially coming from Tanya Plibersek who should know better. There is already enough fear amongst medical practitioners who are reluctant to prescribe much needed pain medication. The insatiable desire to stop drug misuse is simply not balanced with providing important medication. Instilling fear into prescribing GPs does not help address the problem of drug abuse.

Maybe Tanya has never understood what a harrowing experience heroin addiction and prison really are? Tanya’s husband, Michael Coutts-Trotter and his heroin related problems ended two decades ago but since then, he has managed to become the Chief of Staff to the NSW Treasurer, Director-General of the NSW Department of Commerce and was appointed the Director-General of the NSW Department of Education and Training in 2007. An amazing recovery for a banged up junkie.

But it seems that her husband’s past has not managed to influence her present thinking. In January 2011, Tanya reinforced the government’s support of failed drug policies with an article in The Australian. Her attempt to appear appalled by the unethical spending habits of Australians was really a support piece for various government policies with criticism of those who are selfish and unethical in their decision making by contravening those policies. There was confirmation that the government’s internet filter would stop sickos viewing child abuse or violent sex, warnings of unfluoridated water harming our children’s teeth, praise for “the very successful national drug strategy” and even some finger wagging at those who buy expensive bottled water when they could drink some “good old five-star Sydney water”.

Many consumers think carefully about the ethical farming of veal, for example, but think nothing about the chain of misery and exploitation that brings them their Saturday night cocaine. Many Australians wouldn't eat foie gras because the practice of force-feeding geese is objectionable, but drug mules desperate enough to swallow condoms full of cocaine don't get a second thought.

The ABC reported in September that Mexico’s Sinaloa drug cartel is responsible for about half the cocaine importation in eastern Australia. More than 28,000 people have died in Mexico since 2006 as a result of the wars between rival drug cartels and law enforcement. The country is on the verge of collapse and brutal mass murders are becoming commonplace as drug lords vie with one another for lucrative control of regions.

Many of the so-called feelgood recreational drugs produced in Australia are made in circumstances in which violence is seen as a necessary tool in the process of production and distribution. The last person you bought from might be perfectly charming, but you can be almost certain that somewhere along the chain, violence and intimidation have occurred to bring you your drugs.

--The Australian - The Ethical Dilemmas Of Cocaine And Bottled Water

But where Tanya really went astray was with her attempt to cash in on the recently popular trend of blaming those who use “so-called feelgood recreational drugs” for feeding the violent drug cartels in Mexico. This, of course is ridiculous and more evidence of how prepared some politicians are to deceive us about drugs. And coming from Plibersek - who has living proof sharing the same bed - it’s even more diabolical. The fact is, drug cartels only exists for one reason … drug prohibition. It’s the very policies that bucket heads like Plibersek push that causes the 35,000 plus deaths in Mexico. If anyone is selfish and unethical in their decision making, it’s the bloody politicians.

Street Drugs vs. Pharmaceutical Drugs

The problem with heroin, cocaine and speed is that they are usually made by criminals in makeshift labs and passed down through various dealers who cut it at each stage. This means that the strength is unknown and full of god-knows-what. Pharmaceutical drugs though, are 100% pure with a known dosage. Some addicts will turn to Pharmaceutical drugs after a bad experience with street drugs or are wary of wasting more money on low quality gear. Surely, a better outcome in the spirit of harm minimisation.

There will always be people who inject drugs and there will always be people with narcotics dependencies. The positive advantage with OxyContin is that users know exactly what they're getting, whereas with heroin, they don't. Many now prefer OxyContin because it's clean and it's safer.

--Gideon Warhaft of the NSW Users & AIDS Association

The pressing issue, as always is the law. If these drugs were prescribed to addicts in a controlled and clinical setting, there would be no diversion or over prescribing. We tend to forget that all drugs, including heroin, morphine and cocaine were once available to addicts as part of their treatment plan. They weren’t looked down on or stigmatised like today’s junkies. Most addicts worked, had families and lived like everyone else of the time. And the truly amazing fact is that since prohibition, we have spent trillions of dollars and sent millions of people to prison trying to stop drug use but addiction rates have remained the same. It seems that having hard drugs freely available via a doctor’s prescription yielded no more addicts than ruthlessly locking up those suffering from addiction. Armed with these facts, we, as a society should demand that politicians and law makers abide by the evidence and expert advice and stop this futile war on people.

Legal 'Heroin' Sold To Addicts

Sydney Morning Herald

Eamonn Duff and Daniel Lane

March 2011

EXCLUSIVE

More than 580,000 taxpayer-funded scripts were approved in NSW in the past two years for OxyContin and similar opiate painkillers, such as OxyNorm and MS-Contin, dubbed ''hillbilly heroin''.

For every $34 script of OxyContin, users are obtaining a box of 20, 80 milligram tablets. Each tablet can then sell on the black market for as much as $50. With further subsidies to pensioners, the box can be bought for as little as $6 - and its contents might be sold on the street for $1000.

While the medication has revolutionised care for chronic pain sufferers, it is leaking out of the health system to such an extent that police and health experts warn it could soon surpass street heroin and ice as the needle addict's drug of choice.

The prescription opioids are obtained unlawfully by dealers and addicts who ''doctor shop'' for multiple prescriptions. One patient visited 46 doctors in three months and obtained 119 scripts, primarily for OxyContin, the government has confirmed.

Sydney doctor Alan Saunders, who has been targeted by doctor shoppers, warned: "It's not just OxyContin - it's valium and all the other drugs. The government is subsidising the drug trade."

Pharmacists say they are confronted with stolen and fake scripts, while legitimate pain sufferers are obtaining the drug and then selling it.

The government acknowledges the problem. Federal Minister for Human Services Tanya Plibersek confirmed to The Sun-Herald that Medicare had identified 50 doctors for ''unusually high levels of prescription writing for drugs such as OxyContin and OxyNorm''.

"The misuse of prescription narcotics is a growing problem which destroys lives and tears communities apart. Doctors suspected of making these drugs available to patients who do not require them for clinical purposes will be put on notice."

With a slow-release formula, OxyContin capsules are designed to work through the day. Illicit users, however, discard the other binding agents and extract the drug in its purest form so, when injected, it delivers an instant hit.

According to new state government statistics released to The Sun-Herald, more than $557 million worth of illegal drugs were seized in the state last year - more than double the street value of the previous year's tally of $260 million. The haul included $185.2 million worth of cannabis, $126 million of cocaine, $195 million of amphetamines and $28 million of MDMA/ecstasy. NSW Police Minister Michael Daley said the figures showed police were doing ''a fantastic job keeping our streets safe'', adding: ''It's millions of doses of deadly substances that have been kept out of the veins of would-be drug users.''

Significantly, NSW police also seized more than $25 million worth of heroin. At the same time, a taxpayer-funded version of the drug is infiltrating the black market. The commander of the NSW drug squad, Nick Bingham, said: ''We're talking pharmaceutical-grade heroin. It's highly sought after in the drug-using community and, unfortunately, it is finding its way [onto the streets]. To be honest, police don't particularly want to have to target prescription opiates when there are other important things to tackle, such as organised crime.''

Inspector Bingham is part of the recently formed National Pharmaceutical Misuse Strategy Committee and said prescription opiates were ''high on the agenda … One of the discussion points is educating doctors in regards to prescriptions … there needs to be tighter scrutiny.'' The director of the Alcohol and Drug Service at St Vincent's Hospital, Alex Wodak, agrees major reforms are needed to improve the way opiates are prescribed by the medical profession: ''The process needs to be far more discriminating, more realistic, more careful.

''GPs do the bulk of this work. They're under tremendous pressure and could do with better assistance from the whole system, whether it be from medicine doctors, psychiatrists, pain doctors or better guidelines tailored to them.''

Dr Wodak also referred to the ''long overdue'' national real-time database which, if implemented, could alert authorities when ''runners'' try to use multiple scripts at different chemists, at different locations.

''The Commonwealth seems interested in trying to get all the states to adopt a similar live system,'' he said. ''If we are serious about this issue, we have to form a national response.''

But Richard Mattick, from the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, fears a crackdown could hit genuine pain sufferers.

''Let's not forget these medications are terribly important to the community,'' he said. ''If you have a loved one affected by cancer or serious pain, you want them to receive the best possible care and these medications are much better, much safer than anything previously available. The community is better served and, in a way, that has allowed prescribing to be more generous.

''The danger here is that we see the bad side but don't balance that against the need.''

Gideon Warhaft, of the NSW Users & AIDS Association, argues: ''There will always be people who inject drugs and there will always be people with narcotics dependencies. The positive advantage with OxyContin is that users know exactly what they're getting, whereas with heroin, they don't. Many now prefer OxyContin because it's clean and it's safer.''

Related Articles

A Lot To Learn For New Man In Education's Highest Job

New Schools' Boss Defends Criminal Past

Legal 'Heroin' Sold To Addicts

SA Gov. Hates Pain Sufferers

Agony Of The Chronically Ill 'Ignored'